/lit/ - Literature

>>22323248
>>22323437
Hegel is the grand father of modern liberalism, communism, and fascism. That being the case, you have a lot of very bad / biased analysis of him from folks attempting to either claim him or attack him as a Boogeyman. Likewise, he is the main cause of the analytical/continental rift in philosophy. Logical positivism wasn't *just* Russell getting filtered by the Logic, but that was part of it. So, even the half of philosophy that ran from Hegel is still dominated by him simply by being a reaction to him. Then, he is also huge in continental philosophy. He is sort of the Aristotle to Kant's Plato, not because their philosophies map to those two, but because you have two different pairs of philosophers two millennia apart who both have this huge influence.

Or, to be truly presuppositionless, jump into category theoretic formalization of the Greater Logic, pic related! (Don't actually do this.)

>>21879318
The recipe for taking incredibly intelligent students with perfect GRE scores, top of their class at elite universities, with creativity, and great minds of mathematics and getting them to produce nothing but schizophrenia for the next 40 years of their lives.

His Logic is hands down the most impossible thing the read in history. It's the Ulysses of academics. I've seen obviously talent mathematicians say how great it is, but I am no slouch myself and I am 99% sure this is just posturing bullshit. It is incoherent.

I don't think humanities type philosophers read this part of Hegel. They read the Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Right. The Greater and Lesser Logics tend to get focused on by the types of weird mathematicians who do mathematical foundations and the weird subset of philosophers whose work consists of pages and pages of autism rune "proofs."

>>21654022
Wrong, the unity of opposites is the bedrock of mathematical foundations. The Science of Logic was just legit 200+ years ahead of its time and mathematics and formal logic needed time to catch up to the intuitions.

>>21579771
Neat.

But why does this exist? Does it emerge via contradiction (e.g being/nothing becoming) as in Hegel (or from Boehme)? I'm quite fascinated by that.

Particularly since the dialectical is not subject to incompleteness or undefinability, unlike axiomatic formal systems. Hegel didn't formalize this, but others have worked on that since, pic related.

I can get behind information based reality. Big fan of Wheeler's "It From Bit," and Davies' work on the subject. Also Deacon relating it to biosemiotics.

>>21550046
Philosophy. Highest average GRE, highest verbal, just about the highest quantitative (logic programs, a subdiscipline of philosophy have the highest, although it's a bit unfair since only elite programs maintain separate logic degrees).

I'm not talking about humanities philosophy, which is more what you see in intro undergrad courses, which is all most people see. But more the programs that take promising, top of their class even in elite settings mathematicians, theoretical computer scientists, and physicists and turn them into schizos trying to prove that reality can be explained by combining category theoretic approaches to Hegelian dialectical and categorical quantum mechanics/quantum information theory.

Makes you unemployed and schizo.

>>21479302
>>21481520
>Imagine trying to understand philosophy without math
>Imagine trying to understand math without logic
>Imagine trying to ground math in systems reliant on axiomatization and subject to undefinability and incompleteness, and dealing with the clearly failed correspondence, axiomatic, and coherence definitions of truth, or coping with pragmatics instead of embracing "the truth is the whole," and category theoretic dialectics built up from the adjoint modality of being and non-being, is and is not, and upwards to categorical quantum foundations and quantum logic grounded in no-go theorem sublations.
>Imagine having other goals in writing your papers than progress towards the Absolute.

>>21464867
Nlab, one of their articles on The Science of Logic or sublation. IDK, there is a lot of schizo shit there.

If you search academic papers for category theory and Hegel or Lawvere you can find even higher level autism. There is also "information theoretic Hegelian/Boehme inspired models of the 'Bit Bang'" out there, and an entire, remarkably usable, description of quantum mechanics, mostly used for quantum computing but I think also for theory, called XY Calculus built up from category theory. That's a bit more down to Earth, but no doubt they will get combined soon enough.

Sometimes you don't need evidence. The fact that, if you roll two fair six-sided dice, 7 is the most common number you will roll, and 2 and 12 are the least common numbers you will roll, is based on deduction.

Likewise, if a coin can only land heads up, tails up, or, very rarely, on its side, the fact that: "the coin is heads up," implies "the coin is not tails up," by necessity.

If logic does not maintain, then nothing follows from anything else and knowledge is impossible.

On the other hand, if you can build up physics and the special sciences from mathematics alone, and ground mathematics in logic (a faliure to date, but still an ongoing project with category theory), then you can ground everything in deduction. The Logos ends up breathing the world in existence, potentially through the principal of explosion, if this logic is objective/dialectical. A neat thing about the dialectical is that it is not subject to incompleteness the way axiomatic theories are.

There are some neat attempts in this line. On the one hand, you have people trying to formalize the infamously difficult Science of Logic through category theory, on the other, you have things like XY calculus that can model quantum systems starting from category theory with a finitist system.

Hegel is famously regarded as the most difficult philosopher to read for good reason. His work is incredibly wide ranging, covering basically every area of philosophy, not very will organized despite this breadth and depth. The writing is famously arcane and poor. Sentences run on and on, with clauses piling up in the grammatical equivalent of a thirty car wreck. The ideas themselves are about as complex as you get too. The Phenomenology in particular arguably lacks any rationale organization and is said by some to be two books smashed together. The Greater Logic, the rival to the Phenomenology as Hegel's masterwork, is more organized, but objective logic is very hard and only formalized with category theory recently (pic related from 2022, the work goes on).

More importantly, Hegel is open to numerous very different interpretations due to his incredible influence on philosophy (no one so dominated philosophy for a period except Aristotle during scholasticism, even analytic philosophy, which curtailed Hegel's dominance is a reaction to Hegel). Those influenced by Marx or who want to rehabilitate Hegel for physicalism denude his ontology and make the dialectical about subjective concepts alone, as opposed to concepts relating to a thing's being and the truth of that thing. They sacrifice Hegel's solution to nominalism vs realism, which is an intuition well borne out by modern cognitive science, in order make Hegel work with a ontology popular with the laitey despite having been torn apart by philosophers. Meanwhile, you have people like Magee who wants to make Hegel primarily an esoteric sorcerer. Two poles.

I would read the Stanford Encyclopedia article to start so that you understand the schools. The article on Hegelian dislectical is very good and you can return to it many times and get more.

The best intro I have found is a book called Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit. Despite being nominally a book about philosophy's impact on theology, it opens with an excellent, concise overview of Kant, then Fichte and Schelling, then Hegel. For a quick intro, you got get it from a library and just read the intro, Kant chapter, skip the English empiricists, then read the parts on Fichte - Hegel.

For diving into Hegel, the books made from his lecture notes are way easier than the Logics and Phenomenology. You can even listen to them and glean something. I would start with the Philosophy of History after the background reading.

If idealism just seems to ridiculous to take seriously at all, and Kant's noumenal/phenomenal distinction sounds like something "science as solved," I would recommend Hoffman's The Case Against Reality for a scientifically based argument for why this is still a major problem. The Stanford Encyclopedia article on physicalism or the first papers in The Idea of the World (out for free) are helpful here too. I didn't find them to be convincing arguments for idealism, but they are good arguments for taking it more seriously.

There is a lot of Hegelian stuff out there. Mathematical formalism of the dialectical as a means of grounding math, and this in turn being used to explain the generation of all the information in the universe (the "Bit Bang"), which emerged from contradiction. You can find plenty of papers in this mold, also a lot following Pierce and pansemiosis, which is influenced by Hegel. You see it much more with people who are big into information theoretic approaches. It shows up in biology through biosemiotics too. Cognitive science has some idealist figures too.

But generally these are in paper form because:
>A. You will get crucified career wise for doing this, especially if you make a popular science version, so the stuff doesn't get play in book form and pretty much requires tenure to work with, the way quantum foundations used to until the 2000s (thanks Popper dick riders).
>B. It's generally combing Hegel with abstract mathematics and physics. None of those lend themselves to easy popular science reading alone, and are almost impossible to render together. Normally the popsci versions of new ideas takes a few decades to come out because it takes a lot of work to refine the concepts and figure out ways to explain them.

Hegel definitely seems to be having a resurgence in the sciences. It might be search bias, but I've seen him plenty in biology, mathematics, physics, and psychology/cognitive science lately. Some computer science too.