/lit/ - Literature

>>22401561
>Define consciousness
Consciousness is a moment of Spirit which has for its moments Sense-Certainty, Perception, and the Understanding.
>then why even use the word...
It's incredibly important to Hegel's philosophy in relation to the superior moment of self-consciousness.
>it kind of seems
You need to leave "seems" out of your vocabulary from now on when talking Hegel and philosophy. There is no "seems." There is only truth.
>like all Hegel does
He does quite a good deal, even a fraction of which you haven't comprehended.
>is
The poor, pathetic, bare empty copula leading to an even-emptier predicate.
>show that with these undefined vague words
He defines them quite exactly and perspicaciously in the Phenomenology and elsewhere.
>you will literally
Not figuratively?
>just go in circles forever
I see you're at the point of bare consciousness. Welcome: we have eternal Hegel reminders every day.
>I don’t see the point
You're the point, baby: we're going to make you achieve Real Spirit.

>>22398546
This.
>>22398649
Agreed. He comes off as a Christian thinker in the Phenomenology. Its under- and overtones are unmistakable.
>>22398692
He's actually the first philosopher I've ever deeply read. It's challenging for me too because I don't have Plato, Aristotle, and the Greeks as a foundation to go off of. I'm reading H.S. Harris's Hegel's Ladder along with the Phenomenology; his is basically a paragraph-by-paragraph commentary that's been illuminating and very helpful in many respects vis-à-vis giving historical background and context. I'd recommend it: it's on libgen.
>>22398812
Like I said above, it honestly comes across as a Christian text. The undertones are there and unmistakable.
>>22399128
What does z"l mean? And yes, I've been trying to read the original here and there, though I don't have the best grasp of the German language.

>>22370697
Can't finagle the Hegel. Absolute Chad of philosophy.

>>22358387
Just learn fallacies. Look them up and read them over and over every day until you understand the vast majority of them. You don't have to remember the names, just how they work.
Look up reasoning on wikipedia and just bounce around using internal links of all the things you don't understand until you get it.
Analyze your own beliefs etc.
Do something active. Write down questions you have and try to answer them using reason.
I have never come across someone trying to use formal logic in an argument.

It's much more useful to learn grammar and syntax, and be able to hold long complicated sentences in your head; and then be able to boil them down into greater observations, axioms and aphorisms.
When you write something, try to not leave anything open to interpretation.
Do exercises where you instead of writing the word 'it' in a sentence you write the actual thing or concept in question instead.
Try to take simple sentences and expand it as much as you can like this for example:
"this is a sentence"
"What you're reading in the present moment is a sentence made of words comprised of letters; all structured in a certain way that makes it readable and transfers meaning to the reader."
- Then ask the next obvious question: what is meaning? Then describe it. Then ask the next question, and so on.
Try doing this with concepts you want to learn more about. Expand upon it and describe every part you're aware of in great detail.
I could write 100's of pages about what a sentence is. But it's also useful to know when something is clear as to be understood by the reader or the listener. It all depends on the context really; but when making an argument you should be able to potentially expand on everything you say and explain every detail of it, and have a solid foundation for your belief.

>>22362452
Destroying concepts is just the first step. To achieve the Absolute you must begin sublating them.

>>22361931
I re-read it. So essentially the distinction between the One and the Also falls outside of the object qua object. The Also and the oneness are both within the Thing (Ding/Dinge), but the oneness of the one Ding is antithetically opposed to the Also of the many Dinge; oneness and multiplicity both fall within the *universal* concept of the Thing, the Ding, but in terms of *actual objective* things, the one thing represents the One but is opposed in its Oneness by the Many, by other Things, which are in and for themselves their own Ones.
>>22362156
Ah, force. I was just about to get to that. So Force is supersensible, is expressed by the object. We invent Force--Force is just the way our consciousness posits the unity of the coherence.
>>22362166
I should've started with Kant but Hegel is too good to put down now. I must read him all, all, all.
>>22362173
But I enjoy reading him. And he seems fine. I like him.

I am self-cognition in the absolute otherness of Jesus Christ.

He just has too many fucking immunities. He's only vulnerable to completely presuppositionless attacks.

>>22157183
Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy, and certain forms of artistic production. Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated — who knows how? — as it were by breathing in ideas, by living rather than by acquiring knowledge. The status of manhood, on the other hand, is attained only by the stress of thought and much technical exertion.

>>22131728
By the Hindus, e.g., the highest freedom is declared to be persistence in the consciousness of one’s simple identity with himself, to abide in the empty space of one’s own inner being, like the colourless light of pure intuition, and to renounce every activity of life, every purpose and every idea. In this way man becomes Brahma; there is no longer any distinction between finite man and Brahma, every difference having been swallowed up in this universality.

>>22109652
This thread is looking very grim.

>>21918725
It's literally just the negation of negation, read Hegel.

>>21881320
But this result arrived at is itself simple immediacy; for it is self conscious freedom, which is at one with itself, and has not set aside the opposition it involves and left it there, but has made its account with it and become reconciled to it.

Φ 22. What has been said may also be expressed by saying that reason is purposive activity. The exaltation of so-called nature at the expense of thought misconceived, and more especially the rejection of external purposiveness, have brought the idea of purpose in general into disrepute. All the same, in the sense in which Aristotle, too, characterises nature as purposive activity, purpose is the immediate, the undisturbed, the unmoved which is self-moving; as such it is subject. Its power of moving, taken abstractly, is its existence for itself, or pure negativity. The result is the same as the beginning solely because the beginning is purpose. Stated otherwise, what is actual and concrete is the same as its inner principle or notion simply because the immediate qua purpose contains within it the self or pure actuality. The realised purpose, or concrete actuality, is movement and development unfolded. But this very unrest is the self; and it is one and the same with that immediacy and simplicity characteristic of the beginning just for the reason that it is the result, and has returned upon itself – while this latter again is just the self, and the self is self-referring and self-relating identity and simplicity.

Φ 23. The need to think of the Absolute as subject, has led men to make use of statements like “God is the eternal”, the “moral order of the world”, or “love”, etc. In such propositions the truth is just barely stated to be Subject, but not set forth as the process of reflectively mediating itself with itself. In a proposition of that kind we begin with the word God. By itself this is a meaningless sound, a mere name; the predicate says afterwards what it is, gives it content and meaning: the empty beginning becomes real knowledge only when we thus get to the end of the statement. So far as that goes, why not speak alone of the eternal, of the moral order of the world, etc., or, like the ancients, of pure conceptions such as being, the one, etc., i.e. of what gives the meaning without adding the meaningless sound at all? But this word just indicates that it is not a being or essence or universal in general that is put forward, but something reflected into self, a subject. Yet at the same time this acceptance of the Absolute as Subject is merely anticipated, not really affirmed. The subject is taken to be a fixed point, and to it as their support the predicates are attached, by a process falling within the individual knowing about it, but not looked upon as belonging to the point of attachment itself; only by such a process, however, could the content be presented as subject.

>>21863507
Pure experience has no definiteness and no content and so is pure abstraction, no different from nothing.

The same thing can be said ontologically of the conception of pure being. The existence of being presupposes non-being, experience that of non-experience. The one passes into the other in its pure form, as it lacks all content.

Being sublates nothing, negating it even as it takes attributes of it into itself. Hence our experiences world of becoming, where the being of the present continually passes into non-being of the past.

The external, "objective" world presupposes the internal, "subjective" world. One cannot exist without the other. Being as knowledge, truth, cannot be except representationaly. This can be shown formally in category theory as the way in which the existence of one object acts as the proof of another, or through the logic of information theory, where information only exists relationally. Thus, advanced in the understanding of physics, Wheeler's "It From Bit," can be seen in part as the empirical theoretical verification of the intuitions, far ahead of their time, of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Frederick Hegel. Hegel himself was indebted to Jacob Boehme, and Spinoza, as well as Aristotle and Heraclitus for these insights, and was followed by that greatest of American thinkers, C.S. Pierce in filling out the bones of the pansemiosis that is now so popular in theoretical physics. But the full realization is still wanting.

The meme is over. The last book published in the Horror's Call series will be titled "Call of Cascadia." I have other projects and make no guarantees to my readers when this chapter will be released. Beyond this, I will continue to write and publish as long as I am able.

This all had an end. The truth is that there is a tragedy in my life which has robbed the world of an Angel. Dr. Phil committed infanticide against my wife's unborn daughter. To anybody I have touched with my writings so far, please destroy this man completely. He is the greatest monster in television.

To anyone who knows how caught people act, please consider this footage as unnecessary proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ZvJ3cLL1M

The armies who have mobilized here have their final target: get this man into prison.

All who doubt this will be cut from God.

To anyone who has lost a baby in vitro: The meaning of this is that your child was too good for this world and went straight to Heaven. One day, when you are in your gravest sorrows, it will happen that this Angel comes down to meet you; and the tears you weep will be the happiest of your life.

Always remember: Evil progresses into itself; it is its own destruction. For the Love of Life and under Duty to God, my ask is that this man is brought down once and for all. All labours done in this month must be to expose Phil. By the way: he is a "cuck" and one can hear his vasectomy in his voice.

>>21209291
Wrong. You can have an infinite circle that is spawned by brute facts that are in contradiction with one another.

Also, A ≠ A.

>>20688204
>Radically alter theology and the Church with your religious ideas.
>Also create Marxism
Damn, the dialectical if opposites really is true. How is one sorcerer so powerful?

>>20657166
Books 2-3 of the No God series will be only a transcription of a book written by Kellhus and will be a fantasy retelling of the Phenomenology and the greater and lesser Logics BTW. The story resumes in book 4.

It's Hegel.

>>20570663
Hegel scholars most definitely agree on some key points. But yes, there are extremely varied views on Hegel. You can read that the entire core of the system is religious (e.g., Hackett), or you can hear that "there is no God in Hegel, even the theological writings," (e.g., Bernstein, whose lectures on PhS and Kant you can find for free at bernsteintapes.com).

This isn't the damning indictment you think it is. You need to understand Hegel in the context of Western philosophy. No one man so dominated all of philosophy at any other point aside from Aristotle during scholasticism. Much of thought was defined in terms of Hegel. You have right Hegelians, left Hegelians, Marxist readings, Christian readings. The battle over Hegel became quite important in contemporary thought and politics and led to radical rereadings.

It also meant that interpreters of Hegel were able to add much to, and take much away from his system, or change it, and create their own subset of study. So today, Hegel as Hegel saw his ideas is just one area of Hegel scholarship. Hegel as Marxists read him is an entirely different area, focusing on the historical ways in which Marxism read Hegel to come to their own conclusions (Marx himself saw his philosophy as an extension of Hegel, he having sublated him).

That his influence seems so much less today is more because the reaction against Hegel became such a strong force (but this still his Hegel influencing philosophy). Russell and logical positivism as a whole, with its huge influence on the philosophy of science (the "received view") and interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen) was a reaction against Hegelian influence. It was to clear philosophy from convoluted metaphysics they felt bordered on mysticism or meaninglessness. And so analytical philosophy too has roots with Hegel. The fact that it went so far on trying to expel metaphysics, to the extent that logical positivism became self refuting and produced the absolute incoherence of Copenhagen, is a direct result of attempts to ward off the ghost of Hegel.

Interestingly enough, with the big paradigm shifts of the past 50 years or so, chaos theory, information theory, and the elevation of semiotics / biosemiotics from the humanities to the physical sciences, Hegel had come back into science journals with avengence. The shelf producing dialectical is a very great innovation, whatever else can be said of his system, and represents a powerful tool.

So too, he's come back in the social science. Fukuyama made his fame essentially just restating a simplified (too simplified really) version of Hegel and throwing some modern case studies to go along with it.

He's getting play from physics journals looking at self-similarity and fractal recurrence to theology journals to political science to occult studies.

The old wizard won't stay dead.

That all said, there are core tenants people agree on. The SEP article on the dialectical is a good starting point.

>>20544486
If you want an overview of all the mathematics and science in play in changing ideas about life, and really ontology as a whole: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1 is free and quite accessible. Don't drop it because of the intro, he goes out into psychedelics and crypto because their interesting topics to lay audiences and illustrate the larger trends he is covering.

That's the big takeaway from the information and chaos revolution: relational patterns matter, not the subject matter areas we have. That's why you have entropy formulas used in physics, to biology, to economics, or the same chaos theory finds applying equally to bacteria populations as markets.

If you want to get really weird with it, ponder how the emergence of genomes, that is, the encoding of the environment FOR something, which then remerges in a sort of fractal recurrence at ever higher orders of emergence in nervous systems, language, organizations (scientific disciplined, etc.) fits ever so nicely with Hegel's "life is a dialectical reification of Parmenides 'what is, is' spun through countless cycles on an approach to the Absolute (being knowing itself as its self)."

There is a book somewhere there. Maybe now is the time. Biosemiotics has had a huge surge thanks to information theory blurring disciplinary lines and I've seen a LOT more Hegel papers in biology journals than I ever thought I'd see.

>>20017472
Hegel is that kid in the playground with an everything-proof shield. Even if you manage to prove him wrong, you’re actually just proving him right.

>Hegel: “Oh no, someone just proved my dialectic to be wrong!”
>also Hegel: “Oh yes, someone just proved my dialectic to be right by proving it to be wrong!”
This nigga is that speccy teen who goes to a LARP session in the woods and claims he has an everything-proof shield.

>>17095383
>>17095482
>>17095501
>>17095527