/lit/ - Literature

>>22670146
Kojeve is a pretty famous secondary source for Hegel but his work overemphasizes the social dimensions of Hegel’s work to the detriment of the metaphysical/ontological dimensions similarly to what >>22670126 said about pinkard’s epistemological importance coming at the cost of Hegel’s metaphysics. Many Hegelians nowdays consider Kojeve’s thought as so distorted that it ought to be handled as a separate branch of Hegelianism like Marxism or, to an extent, existentialism. I would recommend Emancipation after Hegel by McGowan or Hegel’s Idealism by Pippin.

>>19514325
Metaphysical structures (sider)
Internal verification (contingency of creation)
Ontological relations
- emanationism (neoplatonists)
Ontological dimensions (I feel very confident nobody has come up w this before)
Like monism dualism trialism quadrilism nihilism pluralism etc

>>19075109
You should go full analytic, read Sider's Writing the book of the world, and adopt metaphysical structures but also adopt ontological relationships and ontological dimensions. It covers every philosophy.

>>18383179
That's predicational monism you just described. There are different kinds of monisms. There isn't a justification for or against other ontological dimensions but at least in terms of object relationships of one cause one effect (in general) and efficient cause by God is certainly monism of some sort

>>18352190
Yeah I can give examples of how to use them.
So for monism: darkness is absence of light, cold/temperature, evil/good, zero/number, xy is a derivation of xx. Anyways by these you can already see that you can do math, science, ethics etc with it and have I be fruitful.
For dualisms: wave-particle interpretations of light, digital computers take a dualist approach in 1 or 0 (monism wouldn't have zero be operable it would look for what the 1 would be derived from or conjoined with). Classical logic follows this truth structure as well. Male/female etc. You can see how a dualist interpretation doesn't necessarily have to contradict monist or other dimensions. You can have multiple dimensions (say monism derives dualism derives etc) and if anything a metaphysics implies I should be able to explain them all anyways (even if false, why they are false).
Trialism is something I enjoy: trinity, so everything is interpreted through three fundamentally, beginning-middle-end in books or climax for middle (it asserts the macro and micro aspects of stories are like this), intuitionist logic, male/female/intersex.

Anyways there are lots of examples and they inform how you'll interpret or communicate your thoughts and they give a rigorousness to any subject or field you're in. If you're making a computer you would make it in a dimension you believe is correct and that would, if it's in line with reality, would get you a better computer better technology. You can literally Rick and Morty your philosophy of technology by having a good value system and structure for the next technology rather than waiting to see what the democracies are brainwashed into thinking is cool to buy.

Data structures in computer science are a good example of metaphysical structures, relationships and ontological dimensions.

>>18352223
>The last, but easiest and quickest, way to follow along is ontological dimensions (like monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism). They're like metaphysical structures but a more micro element. If you see kant having an unwieldy trialist split that goes into a dualist split then another trialist then a single branch with absolutely no justification except as an informal observation then this helps you put it into terms and see where their metaphysics is lacking. Aristotle does this by asserting everything is fundamentally derived from substances (pluralism) which can be broken down (or made universal through his logic getting the actualities of them) into the 4/5 elements. He revisits a quadrilism in his 4 causes.

This is literal schizo word salad. It makes philosophy look like an illegitimate field of academic study to be associated with such nonsense.

>>18352154
Thanks this was my conclusion aswell so i started taking things chronologically, i have little interest in hob or locke in your example so getting through their works might be harder than usual

>>18352165
>The last, but easiest and quickest, way to follow along is ontological dimensions (like monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism). They're like metaphysical structures but a more micro element. If you see kant having an unwieldy trialist split that goes into a dualist split then another trialist then a single branch with absolutely no justification except as an informal observation then this helps you put it into terms and see where their metaphysics is lacking. Aristotle does this by asserting everything is fundamentally derived from substances (pluralism) which can be broken down (or made universal through his logic getting the actualities of them) into the 4/5 elements. He revisits a quadrilism in his 4 causes. Again philosophers aren't as formal as they should be but I've found this helps keep things structured until I've found the metaphysical structure and can derive things from it that match their conclusions.

Can you elaborate further? i don't understand the monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism part

>>18352030
Try to get a grasp on metaphysical structures (foundationalism, reverse foundationalism, progressivism, coherentism etc). It's literally a structure for how you think reality works (foundationalism is a tree, progressivism is the thesis-antithesis-synthesis arrow, coherentism is a chain, etc). Everything would fundamentally look like the structure you believe reality is and a lot of these structures are already apparent in logic, programming, math (for trees). If you ever have doubt to what they're saying check to see how it matches up to the metaphysical structure you've thought and debated about. If it's a good structure then it'll be universally applicable.
A relationship is inherent in these but, for trees again (I'm a huge foundationalist), to see how to go from base to branch to branch you should know what inference rules best describe how you traverse through them. I use an inhibit inference rule but you'd have to justify yours. This is more for you putting things together rather than following along because philosophers, including analytic, are pretty informal sometimes by necessity and they may make a mistake anyways and you'll be left trying to square a circle.
The last, but easiest and quickest, way to follow along is ontological dimensions (like monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism). They're like metaphysical structures but a more micro element. If you see kant having an unwieldy trialist split that goes into a dualist split then another trialist then a single branch with absolutely no justification except as an informal observation then this helps you put it into terms and see where their metaphysics is lacking. Aristotle does this by asserting everything is fundamentally derived from substances (pluralism) which can be broken down (or made universal through his logic getting the actualities of them) into the 4/5 elements. He revisits a quadrilism in his 4 causes. Again philosophers aren't as formal as they should be but I've found this helps keep things structured until I've found the metaphysical structure and can derive things from it that match their conclusions.

>>18336650
There's physics which is a framework of material reality and its causation. Metaphysics is of all reality such as the proper way to interpret information (monist, dualist etc).

There are metaphysical structures (reverse/regular foundationalism, pro/ regressivism, monism, nihilism, coherentism). Those have ontological dimensions (monism, dualism, trialism, pluralism nihilism etc).
Of those that you adapt you get a natural inference rule which allows you an entirely different conception of reality. You get a different logic/math/science/technology/ethics. All new paradigms start w a new development of these and everything is traced back to a new Metaphysics. Some Metaphysics are near dead ends while others have been more successful.

>>17359111
I try to understand the metaphysical aspects they have like whether their ontological dimensions are monist or dualist etc. That takes care of almost everything for me desu.

>>16931554
From low to high
Epistemology
Some historicism
Ontological dimensions
Truth narrative
Fully worked-out metaphysics with implications in every other field

That was my journey each level informs the lower. It's not formalized

>>16820178
I think how perceiving existence is fundamental and an interpretation of truth follows from that and then ontological dimensions.

>>16775469
Try to read it as a metaphysics. Take down the more fundamental aspects before more derivative ones like how it defines truth, the structure of existence (ontological dimensions like monism dualism pluralism nihilism). After you've done this a bit it gets easier to see which makes sense and which doesn't (kants ontological splits of mind, Aristotle's governments). Everything can be derived pretty easily from those but it helps to go more derivative as well. You can see easier where their metaphysics contradicts or is conclusive of their metaphysics

>>16642038
I was the one who said I'd hold you to it, tysm

I do have a question, about ontological dimensions (monism, dualism pluralism etc) which would that be under?

>>16562319
Do ontological dimensions like monism vs dualism vs trilism etc pluralism. Their takes on truth, applicability in mapping physical objects accurately. Progress and growth in them and perhaps use a philosopher or religion or subject as an anchor to explore those dimensions in.

>>16561553
A framework for how the universe works like physics is a framework for how material causation works. So it's a system that defines ontology, truth, ontological dimensions like monism etc, ethics, epistemology etc. Epistemology takes axioms in metaphysics. You assert your existence and the existence or non existence of other objects. You assert rationality in the case of descartes. Starting with Locke's individual is schizophrenic and only band-aided by political propaganda. You literally have no idea what you're talking about by starting with Locke. I've seen more relevant work in philosophy on this cite than anything I've read by contemporary ph academia.

>>16275997
Thank you. I asked in another thread and found their answer more understandable:
>>16275556
>It's like physics is framework for how material universe works, metaphysics is immaterial and material where you get into ontological dimensions like dualism vs monism vs pluralism and realism vs idealism, physicalism vs metaphysics (immaterial conception of reality). With a broad and true enough metaphysics you can have an opinion on everything from an overview including creation etc. You'll have a logic that follows, math, natural language, programming language... if it's good enough even an ai. Everyone has a framework for reality but most of ours are taken by contemporary biases and lead us down the same path and you can't criticize it which is why it's funny watching commies and nazis attack liberalism but effectively copy every liberal export imaginable (for example, worker bucks vs dollars as a means to get rid of capitalism etc). It all starts with a good metaphysics.

>>16274287
It's like physics is framework for how material universe works, metaphysics is immaterial and material where you get into ontological dimensions like dualism vs monism vs pluralism and realism vs idealism, physicalism vs metaphysics (immaterial conception of reality). With a broad and true enough metaphysics you can have an opinion on everything from an overview including creation etc. You'll have a logic that follows, math, natural language, programming language... if it's good enough even an ai. Everyone has a framework for reality but most of ours are taken by contemporary biases and lead us down the same path and you can't criticize it which is why it's funny watching commies and nazis attack liberalism but effectively copy every liberal export imaginable (for example, worker bucks vs dollars as a means to get rid of capitalism etc). It all starts with a good metaphysics.

>>15800439
My bad, I forgot that most leaders and influential people are all very occupied with “ontological dimensions” and those three other words you learned during your philosophy 101 class.

>>7842279

I posted an essay by Zizek earlier that provides a fairly easy read into the problem; he is anti Specreal but provides a fairly good look into it; in particular this passage reads the problem fairly well:

>In his deployment of the ontology of immanence/withdrawal, Bryant begins by asserting the primacy of ontology over epistemology, and rejecting the modern subjectivist notion according to which, before we proceed to analyze the structure of reality, we should critically reflect upon our cognitive apparatus (how is our cognition possible in the first place, what is its scope and limitation?). Following Roy Bhaskar, Bryant turns around the transcendental question: How does reality have to be structured so that our cognition of reality is possible? The answer is provided by the basic premise of ooo: “It is necessary to staunchly defend the autonomy of objects or substances, refusing any reduction of objects to their relations, whether these relations be relations to humans or other objects.”4 This is why there is no place for subject in Bryant’s edifice: subject is precisely a nonsubstantial entity fully reducible to its relations to other entities.

>From the Hegelian–Lacanian standpoint, the tension between the epistemological and ontological dimensions is resolved in a totally different way: the object is inaccessible, any attempt to seize it ends up in antinomies, and so on; we reach the object in itself not by somehow seeing through these epistemological distortions but by transposing epistemological obstacles into the thing itself. Quentin Meillassoux does the same with regard to the experience of facticity and/or absolute contingency: he transposes what appear to be transcendental partisans of finitude as the limitation of our knowledge (the insight that we can be totally wrong about our knowledge, that reality in itself can be totally different from our notion of it) into the most basic positive ontological property of reality itself—the absolute “is simply the capacity-to-be-other as such, as theorized by the agnostic. The absolute is the possible transition, devoid of reason, of my state toward any other state whatsoever. But this possibility is no longer a ‘possibility of ignorance,’ viz., a possibility that is merely the result of my inability to know . . . —rather, it is the knowledge of the very real possibility”5 in the heart of the In-itself:

>>7842280

Philosophy is Concept and Jargon heavy; it can't often be boiled down to layperson terms especially when talking about intricacies within the theory.