/lit/ - Literature

>recall, that matter is really mind.

>>13382984
The pragmatic maxim is the one and only true redpill

*blocks your path*
>Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.

What do?

>>11750319
Based, blocking someone's path really shows how continuous it is.

>>11735399
>Every unidealistic philosophy supposes some absolutely inexplicable, unanalyzable ultimate; in short, something resulting from mediation itself not susceptible of mediation. Now that anything is thus inexplicable can only be known by reasoning from signs. But the only justification of an inference from signs is that the conclusion explains the fact. To suppose the fact absolutely inexplicable, is not to explain it, and hence this supposition is never allowable.

Kant BTFO

>>11705140
Wrong picture, but shrek works too.

>>11641585
>>11641586
*blocks your path*

Monitoring this thread.
If it doesn't get interesting quick I will derail another hegel thread.
Why was hegel so opposed to grounding his system in scientific (not to be confused with natural science or empiricism) terms?
Is it better in German or did he just not care about people being able to deduce exactly what he was talking about?
This is why it's hard for me to take non-scientists seriously as philsophers. Base your philsophy on truth reasoned from the best methods and rigorously defined terminology.
What's the deal with idealism anyways? What is it?

How does being and nothing make becoming?
Devolpment does not rely on negation. For something to become it does not cease to be. It is an actuality that realizes some potential and thus becomes the actuality of the realized potential, and so forth. Nowhere does actuality cease to be, it becomes because it has the potential to become, nothing doesn't have potential to become, nothing is a potential.
It's all because idealism is a dumpster fire that thinks the grounds of ideas turn into nothing after ideas come from them. I don't really know what I am talking about but am I wrong? My cursory knowledge of hegalanism tells me that it is fucking silly.

>>11082747
>are extremely dry and pragmatic people
Please stop abusing the term "pragmatic"

>>10960723
Blocks your thread.

>>10948276
*Blocks your path, subtlety implying that meaning exists temporarily*
>"Language games", hehe, oh my sweet summer child.

>>10799338
It's the "bretty gud" "meme" taken to it's logical conclusion, absurdity. It's actually an extremely high brow "meme" only a well versed scholar would understand.
If you don't understand the deep affinities between Kauffman's notion of the Adjacent Possible and Biosemiotics' hybrid Peircean/Uexküllian “sign” concept, by which living systems – both as individuals and in the aggregate (i.e., as co-actors, communities and lineages) – “capture” relevant aspects of their relations with the immediately given Adjacent Possible and preserve those recipes for future interaction possibilities
as biologically instantiated signs. Of course also need to understand Peircean algebraic logic and his existential graphs to able to independently derive s functionally complete system of graphical logic that can represent geniuine triadic relationships, as have I. Beyond this you need to understand the manner in which physical and semiotic causation cooperate in an orchestrated fashion, giving rise to an ever-expanding profusion of scaffolding structures and processes. You will not "get" this "meme" unless you "get" the origin of the phenomenal world via the naturalization of logical conflict or incompatibility which is broader than, but includes logical contradiction). logical conflict, or incompatibility itself, is the mechanism of intentionality; meaning-making is assured by scaffolding, which is a product of earlier choices, or decision-making, or interpretation. If you can't grasp this you can not possibly understand that "gretty boud" is exactly as far as the "bretty gud" "meme" can be taken and still be considered itself.
If you don't understand something ad simple as that. You have no chance of comprehending my memoir of abusing drugs while fucking with realitors. The magnitude of my intellect would destory you, you sir would be the one "having a stroke".

>this is interesting
Lmao swerve on all you babies.
>>10802762
Kant is so 2000 and LATE

>>10041628
Pretty much with this one.