/lit/ - Literature

>>11195689
>Or, essentially: The KNOWLEDGE of a facticity (some state of affairs x) is necessarily other than the BEING of this facticity (because the knowledge is precisely what facilitates our acting on it)
this is extremely unclear language, and I've noticed that the continentals don't seem to care that this is bordering on schiz speak (I'll bite because I like schiz speak, ie Deleuze).

How is the knowledge other than the thing? isn't knowledge of light in our eyes also the light in our eyes?
>Spirit just is this (infinitely self-propulsive) difference, and it's Spirit precisely because this negativity leads to Spirit (the good, love, unity, arts, culture, etc.)
You made a massive leap in the last few lines here anon, I don't think I can even vaguely see how it follows that IF everything we say the mind is not takes place within the mind (it can't you don't hold a thing-in-itself or a universal in your mind when you say the Mind is not this, or this is not this or any kind of negation) that this is overcome and then also yields all these other things. You list off: the good (which is an abstraction, bordering on a highest principle, many see that as the highest, and also intangible), love (another abstraction which has physical correlates; no idea how Hegel thinks this comes from this weird negation propulsion), unity (even more vague) and physical objects have unity in their composition which is implicitly understood even by animals when they build structures, and then arts (arts are works they require physical activities, you can't just Know them and they appear; there's no reason at all why this dialectic would have an effect that leads to art) and then finally culture (a nebulous nothing, which people try to construct out of a multiplicity of heterogeneities)

I'm sorry but if this is actually what Hegel believes I'm disappointed and I don't think I'm going to finish the Phenomenology. I really liked what I was hearing, and this seems like what he was saying in the first few sections but my god that's really preposterous reasoning. Huge leaps in logic and much of it is just blatantly contradicted by watching animals or studying neuroscience. I'm not a materialist or an empiricist but if this is what Idealism ends in, not good.