/lit/ - Literature

dialectics are bunk

it's not thought, i.e., logical judgment, it's more like structured imagination, and it presumes dumb shit like "nothing makes sense without its negation"

one question to ask is whether or not hegel - whether he was a genuine rosicrucian magus or not - could have foreseen the consequences of his own work.

my guess would be no. but it's interesting to think about. if you raised him from the dead and brought him up to speed on the past 200 years, what would he say?

>>11120663
>>11120663
It isn't a circle, but an epic triangle. Understanding how time works could possibly help.

What's the deal with dialectics? Does Hegel explain how the self relates to itself? What the fuck is this mysterious "logic" that Hegel never explains.

>>11120674
>he doesn’t buy the law of identity
A = A means A != ~A

>>11120674
No, analytic knowledge of the object + its synthetic progression as a determinate otherness = dialectic

>>11120690
It isn't the law of identity that is the problem. It's how that identity is realized.
>A = A means A != ~A
This isn't sufficient for identity.
You are like a little baby, watch this.
A = A means A != ~A means A=A

>>11120696
yea that works at the level of an apple seed becoming an apple tree, but what about with abstract concepts? there's no a priori reason to believe that such and such a thing turns into something different

>>11120690
that's just false

just because A = A does not mean that A != ~A, it could = B, AKA ~A, for example

>>11120725
Yeah diabetics doesn't explain this
A=A means A=B means (A=A means A=B)

I always get interested when /lit/ spergs out in letters. I would lean on the identity of indiscernibles over other primitive theorems.

>>11120802
>I would lean on the identity of indiscernibles over other primitive theorems.

elaborate

>>11120736
No, according to the law of identity each thing is identical only to itself. A thing cannot be another thing, it can only be what it is. The negation is needed (~A) because something can only be desernable as a thing if you can sperate it from everything that it is not. This sin’t even getting into the dialectic and becoming, just a note on how negation and identity have always been linked (not necissarilly Hegelian)

>>11120802
> I would lean on the identity of indiscernibles over other primitive theorems.
It would be fine if you want to quantify identity, but that's not the problem. Focusing on actual idenities isn't what this is about. This is a more basic question of how possiblity is idenitifed as actuality. We need to describe identification as qualia.
Check this out, quantfiers and predicates aren't appropriate for something so general
X
X biconditional y
X=Y
For a recursive relationship were x idenitifies x as being y, the recursion itself is part of the identity
So the identity relationship is a triadic relationship x,x-y,x=y.
Sure idenity can be quantified by the binary relationships it is constructed out of, but identification its self is a triadic relationship and can't be reduced.

Peirce was right about teridenitity, this isn't a logic question it's a semiotic question.
More importantly, hegels failure lies here, he didnt explain and probably didn't even know how relationships in dialetics work.

>>11120978
You should perhaps read that section on identity and difference in the Logic instead of laying judgments about things you clearly haven't read. What is it with Peirce fans and being autistic and ignorant? Peirce at least read what he talked about and had an honest engagement with Hegelianism even if he didn't comprehend it.

>>11120978
>>11121155
>>11120802
extremely degenerate demonic thought, should all be executed by firing squad. logic is debased and defiling

>>11120683
>if you raised him from the dead and brought him up to speed on the past 200 years, what would he say?
Why am I being discussed by these lonely weebs anyway?

*blocks your metaphysics*

>>11121155
>section on identity and difference in the Logic instead of laying judgments about things you clearly haven't read.
You got me
>You should perhaps read
No, lol. I have more important things to read. I'm only motivated to read or discuss hegel for narcissistic fufillment, sorry.
If you think that's bad I've barely read Peirce, I just latch on ideas I like and make them my own I guess there is some strength in that weakness.

>>11121301
impressively /lit/

>>11121192
If a human practices degenerate demonic thought, then they should be executed by firing squad
∀H ((H>D) H > E)

>>11120663
Worst reading of Hegel I ever saw desu.
>appeals to givenness and concrete individuality
What is sense certainty.

>>11121155
>What is it with Peirce fans and being autistic and ignorant?

It seems to be mostly one dude posting this stuff and acting like Peirce BTFO of everyone else.

>>11122211
U saw the sign. It's all me making fun during my fuck off time.

>>11120663
He was wrong about God.

>>11122211
It's other Piercians that I've met who have the exact same attitude, and in their case they weren't just acting retarded.