Where did it all go wrong?

How did we go from this high iq take like:
>[Philosophy] 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
and
>[In Philosophy] 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.

To this midwit take:
>Kit Fine has described his general approach to philosophy as follows: "I’m firmly of the opinion that real progress in philosophy can only come from taking common sense seriously. A departure from common sense is usually an indication that a mistake has been made."

Contemporary Anglo metaphysics is ngmi

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bot thread 100%

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      kys bot

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I can prove now, for instance, that two human hands exist. How? By holding up my two hands, and saying, as I make a certain gesture with the right hand, "Here is one hand," and adding, as I make a certain gesture with the left, "and here is another."

    so this is the power of analytic philosophy

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >midwit
      Kant said more or less the same thing

      The Moore argument is more interesting than it seems at first glance. It works in terms of formal logic, and that is significant. More significant is the practical side of it - the existence of your hand is a "moorean fact". What is a moorean fact? Something for which you have more reason to believe than the you do for the contrary. Suddenly you're confronted with the reality of what a bullshit paranoia it is to be concerned about faint possibilities like simulations without much in the way of positive reasons to consider them more likely than what normally seems to be the case. This is pragmatism, and it's good for you. It also has precedence in Hegel. Read up boys

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The Moore argument is more interesting than it seems at first glance.
        >something something emperor's new clothes
        no it isn't

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Moorean fact
        Lol bullshit. It's a phenomenological fact in the sense that it exists in your experience. "Here is a hand" doesn't fricking refute idealism. It means that the hand exists in experience which is exactly what idealism affirms. Such stupid shit, I can tell you're an annoying anglo phil professor in some mid tier university

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Explained in Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West as well as the corpus of Martin Heidegger

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      qrd?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        He can't give you one. He just wanted to recommend his favorite book and he tried to make his recommendation seem more authentic by mentioning an actually good philosopher along with it. There is no QRD. Only a /misc/tard.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Spengler isn't some obscure nazi philosopher. When his book came out everyone read it and it's still pretty influential in the humanities (in my country at least).

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Over time, philosophical thinking builds on itself rationally until it’s emptied out is to skepticism and only practical truths can be discernible. Technology accelerates this process and demands an anti-philosophical metaphysics. To think philosophically and to think technologically are mutually exclusive. These changes gradually reach a terminal point through time.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >another hegel post

    Holy shit

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      ?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, Hegel was truly a philosopher, but not a writer. He was a terrible writer. And because I think his philosophies are weak and useless, I don't think he even meets that threshold very well. I'd rather not talk about him anymore.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I think his philosophies are weak and useless
        why?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          They don't provide value to my life, is the issue.

          Now, I would never say that he is "foolish," or "dead wrong," but I just do not think he wrote effectively in a way that answers the sorts of issues he set out to answer.

          To be honest, I can't really understand him very well, because I think his logic is wrong. Trying to follow his points makes me feel like he's ....just not that smart. I feel like he's unclear because he doesn't know what's true or not.

          I do think that if I met him, I would have one heck of a glorious conversation with him, but otherwise, I just feel like he is not actually as smart as other famous philosophers.

          He is akin to a person here on IQfy who has some cool ideas and stuff, but do they REALLY deserve to be "famous" for it?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            its obvious you are a moron that has not touched Hegel in any serious way, and you are making shit up on the spot. There is no need to act as if a thinker has a single digit iq when the problem is on part of the all the more moronic reader that is outright posing

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You got me. You win.
            I admit defeat. I concede and revert my previous comment. You clearly know the truth about me, and so you win. Frick you, but you absolutely have me cornered with absolute precision.

            You may have your Hegel threads. I apologize. I tried to read him once, and yes, it was confusing, but I only read a few pages just to taste it, and didn't like it.

            But I am a fool compared to you.

            I honor you as a wise man.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Now, I would never say that he is "foolish," or "dead wrong," but I just do not think he wrote effectively in a way that answers the sorts of issues he set out to answer.
            Everything you need to know about Hegel’s project can be answered by reading the preface and introduction to the Phenomenology. How can he be more clear about his philosophical project than quotes such as: “the true is the whole. The whole, however, is merely the essence which completes itself through its own process of development,” “our purpose to describe the Absolute in all its determination,” “the spiritual alone is real. It is the essence, what exists in itself.”

            Hegel slots into a very necessary place in the history of philosophy. He is the utmost synthesis of Parmenides and Heraclitus, the answer to Spinoza’s substance problems, the reversal of Kant’s subjectivism. Never has a philosopher better captured the interplay of unity v.s. difference in any reality schema than Hegel. He is not the schizo mystic random lit posters chalk him up to be. He is not the obscurantist midwit contemporary philosophers claim. His dialectic is rigorous and concise, at times he almost says TOO LITTLE. This is exceptionally clear from reading the dialectic of epistemology in the Phenomenology. Seriously, anon.
            Drop all your shit and actually read it. Play with Hegel’s thought as notions, self-moving concepts. Humor his suppositions and actually see what he is trying to accomplish, then you can ultimately decide the value of his thought.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hoe can you not see that a sentence such as
            > the true is the whole. The whole, however, is merely the essence which completes itself through its own process of development
            Is a vague almost meaningless statement?
            What is development? What does he mean by whole, tis not the same whole as a whole cake nor can it be a metaphysical whole, in that everything is unitary. So what do those words actually mean.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He’s saying this in the preface to make it clear that philosophical truth can’t be reduced to singular paragraphs. There can’t be a clearly defined aim right at the beginning that at the end is achieved. The truth of his system lies in journeying through the whole book.

            The whole is not a definitive end, he does not attain some absolute truth at the end. He merely completes a certain line of thought, articulating reasons development across history, up to the literal book he is writing. The absolute knowledge attained in the last chapter is precisely this syncing up of reason’s development with the book at that exact moment being written. It cannot go further because that’s where philosophical knowledge is capped off at in that very point in history.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You Hegelians need to read On the Use and Abuse of History, possibly the single most important thing Nietzsche wrote.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. It’s clearly genealogy of morals. Please expand on your point—I read it a while ago so it is not so clear, but his critique of hegel is not a definitive btfo.

            Especially because my reading of Hegel is not so teleological and linear as the concept of history nietzsche’s targeting. Btw I like nietzsche, not saying he’s wrong, and I remember liking this when I read it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            ?si=5u9m727cg5IhF7Qp

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you but I have to say: this speaker already said that Hegel believed history and culture came to an end with him. An extremely ungenerous reading, to view the End of History so literally. The whole point is that the present moment is always experienced as the end to which history has led to. Not to mention, Hegel doesn’t view self-knowledge as humanity’s fundamental need, but focuses on epistemology and self-knowledge throughout history precisely because that is the domain of philosophy. What Hegel did that was so based was create a philosophical work that was self-aware of itself and placed itself as the current culmination of everything that came before it. But Hegel totally leaves the door open for things to continue. Absolute truth is not actually attained, I don’t have the text at hand right now, but he totally leaves room for it to be a continual pursuit or whatever

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, interesting. I haven't seen this take around here. You seem to know your shit so can you explain this some more:
            >Hegel doesn’t view self-knowledge as humanity’s fundamental need, but focuses on epistemology and self-knowledge throughout history precisely because that is the domain of philosophy. What Hegel did that was so based was create a philosophical work that was self-aware of itself and placed itself as the current culmination of everything that came before it.
            Also, have you read Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition by Glenn Magee?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He’s saying this in the preface to make it clear that philosophical truth can’t be reduced to singular paragraphs. There can’t be a clearly defined aim right at the beginning that at the end is achieved. The truth of his system lies in journeying through the whole book.
            This sentence is much more meaningful and readable than the drivel Hegel wrote. Not a critique against him because Kant is also notoriously moronic (in its actual meaning) when it came to writing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks but at the end of the day, you could go through the entire history of philosophy and complain about how much easier things would be if the explanation of a sentence replaced the seemingly obscurantist sentence it is explaining. But it doesn’t work like that. Part of the importance of philosophy is having to think through the whole to get to sentences explaining it. Ultimately, it would just be the same as a bad translation. It loses its transcendence. Having to fight against readability can sometimes be a pedagogical tool thats important to the work itself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I literally started understanding the world around me and people after figuring out dialectics(idealists).

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah the bot posts are allowed, but the AI Storytelling post was removed.

      Frick this place, IQfy is purposefully trash.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heh, nothing personel kid

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      hack

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein & Heidegger

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is dead. Science won.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Stephen Hawking put it best when he said, "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."

      I do not believe he said that as a mere midwit who thought philosophy was ACTUALLY dead.

      No, he was waiting and hoping for the moment when philosophers reached into science, and pulled out the core truths, the newly discovered truths, such as the age of the universe, heat-death, evolution, the existence of other stars and LOTS of galaxies, and other complex ideas that I only half understand, like quantum physics, determinism, electricity usage, statistics, and the invention of machines and computers.

      If we as philosophers aren't incorporating that into our philosophy, the existence of modern science and modern technology, then we are going to be talking about Hegel, Plato, Nietzsche, and Jesus for a looooong time.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Literally none of that is verifiable or true though. No, NASA showing computer edited images of a bunch of dots on a black background is not "proof"

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    In science if observations consistently contradict a principle scientists will have to alter the principle or at least restrict where it is applicable. In philosophy if common sense ontology violates a philosopher's system the philosopher will say that laypeople are just thinking about things incorrectly. Good for Fine for acknowledging the arrogance of philosophers. Exciting things are happening in contemporary analytic metaphysics.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Irony of analytic-heads: shit on real philosophy for being vague and obscurantist, end up not making sense themselves even though speaking about less interesting and complex ideas

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Contempotary analytics are difficult because they are making complex arguments and because they are responding to long-running discussions. They generally make clear arguments and signpost well. The Germans were just bad writers. There is a cottage industry of academics trying to figure out what Kants actual arguments were. None of them agree. Nobody who has read the transcendental aesthetic of time or the first half of the 2e transcendental deduction can claim Kant was a good writer. And yet he was more clear than the idealists.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thing I don’t get about this example is that there is no unanimous consensus on any philosopher. It’s not like all Plato academics agree on everything. Certainly not saying Kant was a good writer, he was maybe worse than Hegel, but my original point was just shitting on the incoherence of

          In science if observations consistently contradict a principle scientists will have to alter the principle or at least restrict where it is applicable. In philosophy if common sense ontology violates a philosopher's system the philosopher will say that laypeople are just thinking about things incorrectly. Good for Fine for acknowledging the arrogance of philosophers. Exciting things are happening in contemporary analytic metaphysics.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Kant is confusing at the level of structure. Its not just that academics interpret the 2e transcendental deduction differently, its that there is no consensus on where the arguments are, and how arguments fit together. There is disagreement if the second half of the deduction is a continuation of the first half, or if it is making a similar argument from the first half but from the other direction. In the transcendental aesthetic of time he omits arguments entirely, the entire section is underdeveloped. Its only after he gets to the dialectic that his writing gets more coherent.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Good for Fine for acknowledging the arrogance of philosophers.
      Analytics are not philosophers.

      Hegel:
      A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This doesnt mean anything.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous
  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do trannies love Hegel so much?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Trannies do hegelian reflection but the Self doesn't return back when looking at the object and thus those degenerates associate themselfs with the object of desire(anime girls or woman they imagine in the realm of ideas)

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      kys homosexual. if trannies could into Hegel they wouldn't be trannies. Also, rent free.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because they know rationality is freedom

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"I’m firmly of the opinion that real progress in philosophy can only come from taking common sense seriously. A departure from common sense is usually an indication that a mistake has been made."
    What's common sense? Science rebuffs common sense. The sun going around the earth is common sense. Why would any scholar, let alone someone calling himself a philosopher (though it's pretty meaningless in today's subpar, anti-elitist academia) think that the mental habits of the majority are somehow an indicator for truth? That the unexamined life and mind is something to be "respected" and not questioned?
    Truly a decline

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    pic rel is the value of an individual life

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    One has no context in reality and spits out moronic and unfalsifiable shit like solipsism while the other recontextualizes knowledge to our living reality, allowing us to actually use and verify the knowledge proposed.
    have a nice day, Hegelian troony

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      so, in other words, you were irredeemably filtered.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Please live accordingly to any of your philosophical truths lmao.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP is a pseud who only wants to larp. Not a serious person. Neither was hegel.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its principle, and the question then is only how far this principle is actually carried out. This is as true of philosophy as of religion; for religion equally does not recognise finitude as a veritable being, as something ultimate and absolute or as something underived, uncreated, eternal. Consequently the opposition of idealistic and realistic philosophy has no significance. A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy

    Bugmen will never recover from this.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Religion is philosophy
      >No source for the claim on idealism
      lol, hegelian troony cant into formal logic

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Religion is philosophy
        The distinction of religion and philosophy is one of the most prominent points in Hegel. Religion plays its role and is related to philosophy, as everything ultimately is, but no, religion and philosophy are not the same thing in Hegel.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Religion is philosophy
        Hegel was personally trying to replace the dying and divided Christianity with Philosophy, which is why he treats it as a religion. He wasn't a philosopher, but a theologian.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You’re a moron

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      How do you miss the point of Medieval scholasticism this badly?

      The biggest black pill on Western philosophy is that these “great minds” literally did not even read the Medievals and pretended they never grasped with Classical philosophy. They quite literally pretended philosophy between Augustine and themselves just never happened.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >t. homosexual who has never read Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If Hegel's project was a philosophy that was aware of the history of philosophy up to the moment of its becoming, is a philosophy that is continuously or reflexively aware possible?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What the frick would that even look like? An AI-generated philosophy with its own code as an input?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        A system of thought that recreates everything that *has* been thought and shows it to be an expression of its principles.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    HEGEEEEEEEEEEL

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    bros, my anime hair is off the charts. any recs?

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Hegel is explicit on the point that through his conceptual speculation one achieves a salvation that has not been delivered through Christ, or has been delivered only in an imperfect form and now will be delivered in perfect form by Hegel. When you go through his meditative exercise you are in the state of salvation and beyond being mere man.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      is that not moreso the myth of Hegel as literary mon epic education reformer?

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Slavish paraphrastic renderings needlessly duplicating the 'style' of Hegel into Engrish didn't help.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      who is best hegel translator?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        in english? i'd go with terry pinkard. the man probably knows more about hegel than any other scholar in the anglo-american world.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >terry pinkard
          but does he believe Hegel? does he actually believe in absolute idealisn? or is he like a brandom?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            he identifies as a hegelian

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >terry pinkard
            but does he believe Hegel? does he actually believe in absolute idealisn? or is he like a brandom?

            He is part of the post-metaphysical hegelians. Not an idealist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >post-metaphysical hegelians
            well that's fricking gay. Hegel without metaphysics is like sex with a condom.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. The metaphysics/spirituality is like the condom, and removing it grants us bliss.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong again thinklet

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Zero valid refutation.
            >Still zero material proof for idealism.
            >Yet idealistic proof of materialism exists easily.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            translation rejected then. So who, again, is the supreme Hegel trsnslator (into Englisch)?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            why not just read him in german if you need to be this nitpicky?

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Common sense cannot grasp how what has immediate certainty for it, can at the same time be nothing to philosophy.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    HEGEEEEEEEEL

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    b

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    b

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    u

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    g

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    m

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    o

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    n

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    s

  30. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    t

  31. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    u

  32. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The anglo is right. Hegel is wrong. There is nothing beyond logic which we can capture with words. These sort of abstract statements just permit a certain level of mistake is thought which is deemed permissable. It then can become copied by students who accelerate this information entropy into higher nonsense and then try to justify bad ideas. Then some other academic accuses everyone of speaking nonsense and starts the cycle over again. A strict adherence to logic, such as the type found in mathematics, is the only way we've ever made progress

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There is nothing beyond logic which we can capture with words.
      >A strict adherence to logic, such as the type found in mathematics, is the only way we've ever made progress
      you've never even read his Science of Logic homosexual. stop talking out of your ass.

  33. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    These are both fricking idiotic takes. Philosophy is still philosophy even if it doesn’t go against common sense, and a departure from common sense is not a mistake. You know what’s a fricking mistake? Reading any of this shit and taking it as gospel. Truly the ultimate midwit catcher.

  34. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Post-Enlightenment "philosophy" is nothing more than empty intellectual masturbation, with the exception of a few philosophers who went against what was standard for the time
    Same deal for the majority of literature in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For the most part its either just dishonest, shallow trash trying to justify the decadence and general worthlessness of the age
    Stick to things written before the 1700s (although by then some worthless works had already started appearing) and you'll have little danger of getting swamped by trash. Most of the great literature and philosophy comes from the Greco-Romans and the few surviving epics and mythological works (from any cultures) that we still have, they are far superior to anything else.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *