/lit/ - Literature

>>23311854
What kind of concept do you refer to? Hegel's Concept isn't person-centric, from what I understand.

He was right about everything.

Is Hegel's negation of negation an infinite dialectical process? Or, in the self-contemplation of the Absolute as Concept, does all return to all?

>>23096218
What kind of science might that be?

What is the Absolute, really?

>>23055010
What kind of science?

>yeah bro you can't make any predicated statements about being qua being it just is bro there are no qualities bro
*blocks your path*

>>23043519
Not quite.

Does anyone know of a good book that explores Hegel's philosophy of nature moving from category to category?

*destroys the noumena-phenomena divide*
Nichts persönliches, Kind.

Is Hegelian philosophy compatible with Catholicism?

Who is the final boss of philosophy?

I think Hegel is hated simply because of his bastard mass-murdering child, which has toppled through his stupidity firstly the tough, resilient empire that Hitler and Napoleon couldn't even scratch, and secondly the hegemony that ass-raped Europe for fun and is the inheritor of the smartest, largest race to date, unsurprising given the ontological thesis "that which is, and is to be, for being, shall be all that will last". That is evolution, a corollary of the ontological condition itself.
These mighty, mocking empires, toppled by the unconscious sophistry of one materialist idiot.

"For dis particular waka, I dey propose say make we follow di journey of human mind. We go start from di time wey we dey see di world as sometin separate from oursef, as if na anoda object. Dis time, we never dey recognize say we sef suppose dey involved for di world, as part of am. E be like say we just dey look dey observe, as if we dey outside di whole mata.

But e no staop dia o. As time go dey pass, we go come realize say we fit only know sometin as if say we be part of am. We no go just dey observe wit our eyes and mind, we go dey experience am wit our entire existence. We go come realize say we dey merge wit di world, na so we go take get proper understanding of everytin wey dey hapun.

As we dey waka dis journey, something wey we go call 'dialectics' go dey happen. E go be like say we dey inside argument wit oursef. We go dey explore different ideas and viewpoint, dey try understand di connections and contradictions. Na so we go fit move from one level of consciousness to anoda, until we finally reach di highest level, wey be di absolute knowledge of di self.

We go see say for all dis journey wey we waka, di 'I' na one of di most important thing for we mind. Na through di 'I' we go take know oursef and understand we place for di world. As we dey learn and grow, we go come realize say di 'I' fit change and evolve. E no go dey di same as e be for di beginning. Na so we go fit move from di limited 'I' to di unlimited 'I', wey include everitin and everyone.

Dis waka, e no easy o. E go get times wey we go dey confused and no know which way to go. But as we dey dey navigate di chop and change of knowledge and understanding, we go come see di true essence of we own being. We go come realize say na through dis journey, we go fit truly become aware of we own self and connect wit di spirit wey dey inside us."

so after all that shit we wrote, does he have any straight answer to what happens after death?

The defining feature of vulgarity is a lack of intrinsic being, a contingent fixity that determines thought as an assortment of abstract concepts designed to flatter an equally abstract concept of self.

For instance, treating great philosophers as though they are memes flatters an abstract concept of self as a quirky individual who treats rather obscure, abstract knowledge as a pseudo-competitive topic (memeing Hegel as against Schopenhauer, for instance), and this self-concept would be brought about through the contingent, fixed, abstract concepts of thought that would lead to philosophical writings being portrayed as quirky in certain contexts, a 4chan post, for instance.

This is an example of a vulgar self-consciousness. Many people spend their whole lives like this.

The reality is that the subject is this negation, the process of its own self-mediation with itself. Another way to put this is, “the signifier is that which represents the subject for another signifier,” if we’re looking for a Lacanian spin.

What isn’t vulgar, what is profound — determinations of thought that are in-and-for themselves.

>reality... is... le THOUGHT
trivially false. doesn't this guy have anything else to say? he literally based his entire philosophy off of not liking science lmao.

faggot

>Hegel walks into a bar
>Hegel: so my philosophy is basically that history is a dialectic process, in which thesis and antithesis interact to create a synthesis
>Hegel: and then that synthesis becomes the new thesis, and the process repeats
>Hegel: so it's like, history is this never-ending cycle
>Random guy: wow, that's really deep man
>Hegel: yeah, I know

When did you realize all he wrote is just freemason cope?

What are some books that seriously critique hegelianism and its believers? Specifically the historicism.

why was he seething so hard about mathematicians and common sense philosophers? is it true that he was bad at math and knew nothing about science? if he knew nothing about science then why was he so mad at Newton and what did he base his "philosophy of nature" divisions on? to me it seems pretty obvious that mathematics provides fundamental insight into how the mind works.

Can someone explain to me what the fuck is the dialectics?

ESL+ Retard here, is it me or the language used in philosophy, difficult to grasp? Isn't philosophy a hard subject in itself? Why complicate it further by using flowery prose. Admittedly, I have only read the english translations, so I'm unknowledgeable, whether the original language used by the philosopher itself is complex or it's the translator who choose to do so. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to understand it. Is it same for English philosophers(the ones who wrote in English)? I haven't read any.