/lit/ - Literature

>>23468865
I know that anon, but you are completely missing point: The understanding does not exhaust the powers of the mind, it's power of synthesis (imagination),as opposed to analysis (understanding), gives us an intuition of a whole which the understanding only understands in parts, and that IS the mystical; I agree and know that, but peculative philosophy then reanalyzes this new content provided by this intellectual intuition by means of the understanding. The mystical intuition is the same for the mystic as well as for the speculative philosopher; what separates them is that whereas the mystic stops at the intuition of the whole and leaves it uncomprehended, the speculative philosopher dares to try to understand both the whole and the parts in relation to the whole. The speculative philosopher does not just stand in contrast to the mystic, he is that same mystic at a higher stage of his development.

>>23446489
>>23446496
>>23446512
no it's this one:
>Mark my words anons, history will show the German idealists to have been right all along. The current realist common sense metaphysical paradigm is an ever present farce since the time of the dinosaurs (subhuman intelligences) and the descendants of these same dinosaurs have lived on this same earth, and continue to live on this same earth, not necessarily among us, but beyond our major population centers. They have had millions of years prior to the emergence of modern homo sapiens to develop their metaphysics to a degree incomprehensible by the limitations of the present stage of human cerebral development. As Hegel has said, reason runs far ahead of understanding, and this is true: The world is rational, that is, in principle, understandable, but that understanding is progressive and also depends on the progressive development of the physical counterpart to the mind, that is, the nervous system and brain. Have you ever noticed the size of the heads of the Greys? The Blues? Even the Reptilians? That's right, their cerebral capacities far exceed anything we humans are currently capable of, or can even dream of given our current cerebral development. But the German idealists already knew this even 200 years ago, and the limitations Kant set for the human understanding in 1781, are just that: HUMAN limitations, or rather, the limitations of humankinds present cerebral constitution, which, as a our evolutionary theory has made irrefutably clear, is not static but dynamic. We can and must catch up to our current more evolved overlord species (often considered extraterrestrials, although this is also a misunderstanding through ignorance). Ultimately, the categories of the understanding are the necessary conditions for the transcendental unity of self consciousness, this is true, but we need not necessarily stop there-- that unity need not be limited to SELF consciousness, it can, and must, be expanded to RACE consciousness, a Hive Mind, if you will; a super-organism composed of smaller organisms all consciously controlled and identified with ONE consciousness. This way and this way only can we defeat the more intelligent species of creatures on this Earth that have dominated us for centuries. The alternative is indefinite servitude and submission. Gott mit uns.

>>23310001
>picrel on Determinate Religion

Not particularly, in fact.

>>23116283
>Hegel is a lot more down to earth
no he is not

>man has a duty to rise to that abstract universality of mood in which he is indeed indifferent to the existence or non-existence of the hundred dollars, whatever may be their quantitative relation to his fortune, just as it ought to be a matter of indifference to him whether he is or is not, that is, in finite life (for a state, a determinate being is meant), and so on — si fractus illabatur orbis, impavidum ferient ruinae was said by a Roman, and still more ought the Christian to possess this indifference.
-Science of Logic section 145

>the proposition in the form of a judgment is not suited to express speculative truths; a familiarity with this fact is likely to remove many misunderstandings of speculative truths. Judgment is an identical relation between subject and predicate; in it we abstract from the fact that the subject has a number of determinatenesses other than that of the predicate, and also that the predicate is more extensive than the subject. Now if the content is speculative, the non-identical aspect of subject and predicate is also an essential moment, but in the judgment this is not expressed. It is the form of simple judgment, when it is used to express speculative results, which is very often responsible for the paradoxical and bizarre light in which much of recent philosophy appears to those who are not familiar with speculative thought.

>>23055644
The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk. You won't get Hegel and will never get Hegel unless you actually do the work of reading the whole system and acheiving an intellectual intuition of the idea of the system as a whole and the role all the parts and moments play in the system and their true meaning in the context of that intuition of the whole. In simple terms, Hegel requires initiation (running through the course of dialectic) to be understood. You are either take the leap of faith and run through the dialectic hoping in the end it'll all make sense and enter into the ranks of the initiates or drop out and remain with the profane and seethe and cope as you do now.

>The supreme goal for man placed in the sphere of coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be, of modality generally, is submergence in unconsciousness, unity with Brahma, annihilation; the Buddhist Nirvana, Nibbana etc., is the same.
- Science of Logic section 703

>>22880721
>philosophy isn’t mysticism
>t. doesn't know

>Speculative truth, it may also be noted, means very much the same as what, in special connection with religious experience and doctrines, used to be called Mysticism.

>>22873631
>It doesn't look like German Idealist material


>Speculative truth, it may also be noted, means very much the same as what, in special connection with religious experience and doctrines, used to be called Mysticism.

>>22863720
>But of course the difficulty of finding being in the Notion as such and equally in the Notion of God, becomes insuperable when the being is supposed to be that which obtains in the context of outer experience or in the form of sensuous perception, like the hundred dollars in my finances, something to be grasped with the hand, not with the mind, something visible essentially to the outer, not to the inner eye; in other words, when that being which things possess as sensuous, temporal and perishable, is given the name of reality or truth. A philosophising that in its view of being does not rise above sense, naturally stops short at merely abstract thought, too, in its view of the Notion; such thought stands opposed to being.

>>22856776
>Literally every other system of metaphysics relies on "obvious" assumptions.
except Hegel

>The sciences postulate their respective objects, such as space, number, or whatever it be; and it might be supposed that philosophy had also to postulate the existence of thought. But the two cases are not exactly parallel. It is by the free act of thought that it occupies a point of view, in which it is for its own self, and thus gives itself an object of its own production. Nor is this all. The very point of view, which originally is taken on its own evidence only, must in the course of the science be converted to a result — the ultimate result in which philosophy returns into itself and reaches the point with which it began. In this manner philosophy exhibits the appearance of a circle which closes with itself, and has no beginning in the same way as the other sciences have. To speak of a beginning of philosophy has a meaning only in relation to a person who proposes to commence the study, and not in relation to the science as science.

>>22787640
>I’m sure this is all there is to any of it.

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

>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste

>>22777152
also Hegel is based and Kant-pilled

>I would mention that in [the Science of Logic] I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, IT CONSTITUTES THE BASE and THE STARTING POINT of recent German philosophy and that ITS MERIT REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY WHATEVER FAULTS MAY BE FOUND IN IT. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them. The philosophising which is most widespread among us does not go beyond the Kantian results, that Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth must be directed to faith. But what with Kant is a result, forms the immediate starting-point in this philosophising, so that the preceding exposition from which that result issued and which is a philosophical cognition, is cut away beforehand. The Kantian philosophy thus serves as a cushion for intellectual indolence which soothes itself with the conviction that everything is already proved and settled. Consequently FOR GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, for a specific content of thought which is not to be found in such barren and arid complacency, one MUST turn to that preceding exposition.

>>22740433
>becoming a lunatic, like almost all philosophers.
kek

>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science 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.

>>22734510
Hegel was the man he was looking for-- but the poor guy never lived to see the Science of Logic.

>reflective understanding took possession of philosophy. We must know exactly what is meant by this expression which moreover is often used as a slogan; in general it stands for the understanding as abstracting, and hence as separating and remaining fixed in its separations. Directed against reason, it behaves as ordinary common sense and imposes its view that truth rests on sensuous reality, that thoughts are only thoughts, meaning that it is sense perception which first gives them filling and reality and that reason left to its own resources engenders only figments of the brain. In this self-renunciation on the part of reason, the Notion of truth is lost; it is limited to knowing only subjective truth, only phenomena, appearances, only something to which the nature of the object itself does not correspond: knowing has lapsed into opinion.

>>22657762
>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science 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.

>The knowledge of Mind is the highest and hardest, just because it is the most 'concrete' of sciences. The significance of that 'absolute' commandment, Know thyself − whether we look at it in itself or under the historical circumstances of its first utterance − is not to promote mere self−knowledge in respect of the particular capacities, character, propensities, and foibles of the single self. The knowledge it commands means that of man's genuine reality − of what is essentially and ultimately true and real − of mind as the true and essential being.

>>22605062
>So you finally admit that he's not doing logic.
he is but you wouldn't know since you havn't actually read him

>I don't care what ever mystical gibberish Hegel was spouting but it's not logic.
suit yourself anon

>Common sense cannot understand speculation; and what is more, it must come to hate speculation when it has experience of it; and, unless it is in the state of perfect indifference that security confers, it is bound to detest and persecute it.
-Hegel

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

>>22560180
unironically

>The essential requirement for the science of logic is not so much that the beginning be a pure immediacy, but rather that the whole of the science be within itself a circle in which the first is also the last and the last is also the first.

>>22549364
in earnest

>INB4 why can't you just ELI5!!!!

Hegel:
>I have been only too often and too vehemently attacked by opponents who were incapable of making the simple reflection that their opinions and objections contain categories which are presuppositions and which themselves need to be criticised first before they are employed.

>...there is something stupid — I can find no other word for it — about this didactic behaviour; technically it is unjustifiable simply to presuppose and straightway assume such propositions; and, still more, it reveals ignorance of the fact that it is the requirement and the business of logical thinking to enquire into just this... whether any of these is something true or something actual.