/lit/ - Literature

Hagel wrote on philosophy

The unity of thought and being is revealed by their discrepancy: all particularizations only confirm the existence of the common universality that makes their comparison possible. Reality is a One that reflects itself to itself so it know itself as this One, but this isn't being determined from anywhere beyond or behind the world but as the world itself articulating itself in real-time.

pleb version: mind is more than nature by its knowledge of nature as nature, nature is more than mind by its being the ground of mind, they are two halves of the same circle

>hegel seems interesting
>can't understand him
>ask metaphysical hegelian to explain him
>gives me gay-ass derivatively schellingean schematic that is no more or less preferable to any other just so cosmology
>ask non-metaphysical hegelian to explain him
>gives me gay-ass and highly questionable selective reading of hegel's political philosophy while discarding all of the natural/theological/metaphysical philosophy as "minor"
>tfw no approach that reveals a "true" hegel more interesting than either of these ho-hum options

>>11125831
zizek's hegel

Hoegel Help. Al-Chemisty via Boeing Crushes Photo Video. Smashes His Al-Buddhadi Face In Dribble East. Hegel cannot swim. He also cannot swing. Oslo. Kierkegaard. Bomboclaat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50jyn6_rLFA

>>11125831
>>11125841
notice how he mediates both hotdogs through the stomach, a nasty, shit-creating wasteland, in this meeting we see the true joisannce of the negativity of the digestive system as a partial object par excellence (Like the disembodied had of a Buñuel film), a true organ without a body and so on.

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.

>>11126101
Hegel did think he was grounding his philosophy in scientific (wissenschaftlich) terms. The whole point of his philosophy is to be first philosophy from the ground up. He is basically the ultimate philosopher of "groundedness" of inquiry alongside Kant.

>Base your philsophy on truth reasoned from the best methods and rigorously defined terminology.

This is what he thought he was doing. But to determine "method" what is the best method for determining grounds, one has to ground one's method for making that determination, and so on. So Hegel is trying to ground reason in itself, in a way, to make the exercise of scientifically and thematically elucidating reason-in-itself self-grounding, immanently developing of and from itself.

The confusion arises from the fact that nobody knows what the holy fuck he was doing aside from this vague starting point. Not one single major thinker has ever been convinced by the Science of Logic or even really interested in the Science of Logic all that much. People mostly riff off of Hegel's interior concepts, or what they surmise those interior concepts are, rather than caring about his gigantic, confusing, career-spanning architectonic.

>Devolpment does not rely on negation. [etc]
Now you're doing the same shit he does, though. Substance ontology with random words that are supposed to amount to a self-evident post-critical metaphysics.

>What's the deal with idealism anyways? What is it?
German idealism, including Hegel, is a grab bag of complexly interrelated concepts that do actually do work, do actually conceptually determine the architectonics and systems and discourses centred around them or founded upon them. It is not first and foremost the systems themselves. Those are epiphenomena and manifestation - in the same way that even talking "in terms of," "putting to work" the concept of epiphenomon vs. more basal/archetypal/primordial phenomenon, or the concept of manifestation/instantiation vs. archetype/form/etc. is still a thinking-within German idealism, it's that same grab bag of original concepts again. We are trapped in it and we can't get out.

>>11126101
Because the true science for Hegel is an investigation into what makes mere empirical sciences possible, ie the implicit unity of thought and nature. If you think Hegel must be (and can be) falsified in a lab you don't know Hegel.

>>11126101

>>11126161
>Now you're doing the same shit he does, though. Substance ontology with random words that are supposed to amount to a self-evident post-critical metaphysics
Well that's not true.
Here 'actuality' is not something that has potential as a property, actuality is potential. Actuality develops(devolpment as in the passage of time on whatever scale, Planck length or the biological moment for example) from the realization of it's potential. Actuality isn't a thing in itself devolping from relationships of it's properties, it is a thing relating to itself. Actuality becomes actuality by relating to itself, itself being a potential, more particularly relating to a subset of the set of potentials that is actuality.
This is a relational ontology using scientific and general terms. How dare you tell me I'm doing the same thing as hegel. I'm a post peirceian pragmatist and this all boils down to idealism being stupid and me being very smart.

>>11125800
>The unity of thought and being is revealed by their discrepancy
>all counter evidence to my claims only further proves my claim!!1
wow, sounds like hegel had a really solid case

>>11126354
>Actuality ... is a thing ... Actuality becomes ... itself being ...
>is
>a thing
>becoming
>itself (essence/identity)
>being

>How dare you tell me I'm doing substance ontology

You can have whatever metaphysics makes you feel good bro if you want to ride the trendy hipster Peircean neopragmatist wave that's cool with me just don't think you're ever doing real metaphysics or theology with it, or that you're any different from all the other kitsch shit the academy is pooping out atm

>>11126376
It really, really does, any positing of an irreducible gap between mind and nature can only happen in the mind dimwit, any limit or substance we reduce = x to already begins to undermine itself by our saying it

>>11126392
based

Who should I be familiar with before going into Hegel? Heraclitus, Kant who else?

>>11126463
Please don't tell me you need to study other philosophers in order to understand Hegel. I just bought a book about him in order to understand Lacan so that I can understand Zizek.

>>11126487
You are going from late-game to post-game to pure-ideology. I hope you've at least read Plato, if not Plato through to Kant.

>>11125831
Hegel is basically pure epistemology tbqhwyf.

>>11126487
>reading Hegel to understand Lacan
The absolute state of leftypol visitors.

>>11126463
I love that image so much that I cannot properly articulate my joy.
>>11126487
You need to study other philosophers to understand every philosopher after Plato.

>>11126392
There it is. I knew I was going to regret calling myself something when a casual wikipedian came along and used it to be catty.
>Trendy hipster neopragmatist
Metaphysics
Yikes! Neopragmatism is a school in linguistics.
When I called myself a pragmatist it had nothing to do with metaphysics, obviously. The metaphysics in my post are not wholy described by a published system of thought as far as I know.
>You aren't really doing metaphysics
But I am, as evidenced by the metaphysics in my post. Link the khan acedemy stuff that is like my stuff, I am very interested, but I doubt that exists.

Fuck off.

who here has that pic of sadler behind the blackboard with 'can hegel write' written on it

>>11126257
Lies, this is fictitious and clearly a shoop.
The lengths you go to discredit me with fake news on an anonymous weaboo website is ridiculous, you are either on the spectrum or a paid shill. Get a life

>>11126101
(1/2)
>Why was hegel so opposed to grounding his system in scientific (not to be confused with natural science or empiricism) terms?

There are a few reasons for this, but two reasons which I myself find serviceable enough to justify Hegel's approach is that (1), he had hoped his work to be accessible to people with a decent general education at the time,
i.e. not just specialists in philosophy, history, religion or the sciences, but the average person with a well-rounded education. (2) During his day many people did in fact use terms from the sciences,
but Hegel thought they were employed haphazardly and without explaining fully how the philosophical concepts were linked with such natural phenomena (polarity and magnetism were popular terms with followers of
Schelling for example, though Schelling himself is not critiqued for this by Hegel).


>Is it better in German or did he just not care about people being able to deduce exactly what he was talking about?

I'm unsure how different it is between languages, but I can comment that the Phenomenology of Spirit when written was meant to be a text-book for highschool-university level students
and Hegel was dismayed when people had trouble reading it. Though, I heard he was much clearer in his lectures - and also there is much better introductory literature in English now, the crown jewel
perhaps being Frederic Beiser's 'Hegel'.

>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.

You have to appreciate that at the time philosophical methodology was in a real turmoil after Kant in a threefold way. On one hand, Kant revealed that much of the prior philosophical terminology made too many assumptions,
which led people into the camps of being 'handmaiden's to science' or pure mysticism. Much of the language was viewed as unusable by either saying too much, or alternately not saying anything at all. Hegel was forced into a
position in which he believed that foundationally he had to start from scratch. If you ever read Whitehead, you will find a lot of methodological similarities in their texts.

>>11126725
Holy shit you are a pretentious faggot go back on your meds please. A.W. is an actual Hegel scholar, you know.
>>11121301

>>11126101
>>11126901

(2/2)


>What's the deal with idealism anyways? What is it?

It isn't easy to say for Hegel, because if anything he is probably more accurately named a radical empiricist - the essential claim though is centered around that our minds are in a REAL world, and that over
time Reason becomes itself concrete in the practices of human communities, which is a primitive form of what he calls Spirit. We have to be careful not to confuse Hegel's position with the Subjective Idealism
of Berkeley, the Transcendental Idealism of Fichte and Kant, the Objective Idealism of Leibniz, the Skeptical Idealism of Descartes, or the Absolute Idealism of Schelling.

>How does being and nothing make becoming?

Hegel is the first person to my knowledge to say that negation is not a true nothing, but has some content in it. Further, this negation is conceptual, and not concrete - and though inconcrete it still exists within our experience. Compare for example our popular understanding of lightning today to the time of ancient Romans. We have a concrete phenomena (without presuppositions, a flash of light) that we sense - and I think it is reasonably agreeable that we would allow this much - but whether we view it as being an expression of Jupiter or electric discharge is different, and in our experience of the world a salient and important difference.

>Development 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.

We could say though, that conceptually speaking things cease to be quite as they were - point being that our comprehension of the world is just as important as however the world actually is (the RADICAL CLAIM herein is that Hegel thinks we can actually come to know what things are truly or absolutely and then speak of it to others).

>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.

I guess something worth mentioning here is that ideas for Hegel come from experience, and we abstract and make our ideas concrete again in a community of other beings.

I would sincerely urge you to look into Frederic Beiser's Hegel. As a thinker, Hegel is extremely nuanced and requires a good deal more work to just get into than many other thinkers, but even if you think him incorrect
on a number of things (as I do), he still has some things worth considering, especially if you are interested in Pragmatism.

>>11126463
Also, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume, Locke and Leibniz in their basic positions.

>>11126922
>A.W. is an actual Hegel scholar, you know.
t. A.W.

>>11126939
t. someone who's been on his blog that he shills all the time

>>11126922
Anal Water you're fucking embarrassing yourself

>>11125782
Is it possible to reconcile Hegel with psychoanalysis?

>>11126947

>>11125800
PLAGARISM

>>11126947
Isn't that what Lacan does?

>>11126943
>shills
Ain't ever head of it, mind giving a nigga a link?

>>11127006
We should have it more often.

>>11127015
I don't remember the name of it google aw hegel you'll find it

>>11127038
I did, got nothing explicitly recognizable.
This?
https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/

>>11127045
lol yeah Antonio Wolf; he still hasn't gotten a haircut ffs

>>11127045
This makes me angry.

>>11126101
>Why was hegel so opposed to grounding his system in scientific (not to be confused with natural science or empiricism) terms?
He wasn't. If you study the era Hegel was up to date with all the sciences and understood them quite well, as well as used their terminology in the Philosophy of Nature where the term names fit what he developed as concepts.

>Is it better in German or did he just not care about people being able to deduce exactly what he was talking about?
It should really be the same. It is meant to read with common language, and not mean something far off, but it is also not using terms in merely their common form. Hegel was quite good at not making up new words when common ones sufficed, and this is something shamefully out of style.

> Base your philsophy on truth reasoned from the best methods and rigorously defined terminology.
It is. If you learn from the ground up Hegel is very specific in all he says.

>What's the deal with idealism anyways? What is it?
Simply the concept that nothing finite is absolute. It is a 'figment' just as a thought is in common conception a mere figment of whatever is real.

>How does being and nothing make becoming?
Because Being has Nothing as its content, Nothing has Being as its form, and thinking thoughts necessarily shifts from thought to thinking to thought again.

>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
So, basically, actualization is the negation of a prior actuality. An unactualized actuality is called potentiality.

>>11126947
Disregard Lacan. The Jungian take on the unconscious is made up exclusively out of dualities that form dialectical relationships with themselves and each other.

>>11126487
>starting with hegel

>>11125908
Goddamnit I fucking love Zizek.

>>11125782
things happen because of a spirit
the spirit can only go in one direction
there is a point to everything like in a story but it's not because there is a god

>>11125782
Disregard Hegel, read Schopenhauer

>>11126901
>>11126923
>>11127236
Thank you for effort posting

>>11125908
god i can almost hear him say it

>>11126901
Thanks for explaining hegel. And the historical context, I'm very ignorant.
>Frederic Beiser's 'Hegel'.
Noted.
>Whitehead
Also noted, I've been reading alittle about him and process metaphysics since you brought this up, its been valuable. I'm waiting to read, I'm worried other people will poison my creativity. I have this eccentric way of inquiry where I form opinions on something before I learn about it, it works. >>11126922
I call you out on your bullshit and you double down on your lies, pathetic.
>Hegel is the first person to my knowledge to say that negation is not a true nothing, but has some content in it
So he is saying that in order for being to become it must cease to be?
>We could say though, that conceptually speaking things cease to be quite as they were -
I disagree as I believe actualities to be idenitical to their potentialities I have very recently began to call this actual with potential, anime.
>I would sincerely urge you to look into Frederic Beiser's Hegel. As a thinker, Hegel is extremely nuanced and requires a good deal more work to just get into than many other thinkers, but even if you think him incorrect
on a number of things (as I do), he still has some things worth considering, especially if you are interested in Pragmatism.
Thanks
>>11127236
>He wasn't. If you study the era Hegel was up to date with all the sciences and understood them quite well, as well as used their terminology in the Philosophy of Nature where the term names fit what he developed as concepts.
Thanks for putting me in my place dad.
Sorry I still haven't read hegel
>Because Being has Nothing as its content, Nothing has Being as its form, and thinking thoughts necessarily shifts from thought to thinking to thought again
I'm really starting to get why I disagree with this?
>So, basically, actualization is the negation of a prior actuality. An unactualized actuality is called potentiality.
Are you talking about hegel or what I described? Is this a declarative or a question?

>>11128907
>links to an archived thread where the screen shot came from
>double down on your lies, pathetic.
>Sorry I still haven't read hegel
disgraceful

>>11128916
That could have been anyone in that screen shot. Stop with your damage control and shove that false flag right up your poo-hole where I exsposed your dishonest, slanderous soul.

>>11128927
The screenshot was of you admitting you haven't read Hegel, which you just did in your last post anyways. Jesus H. Christ I have no more (You)'s for you

Thanks for all the meta spoon-feeding yall. Hegel is actually pretty cool. Lol.

>>11128934
>The screenshot was of you
Wrong.
>admitting you haven't read Hegel
Wrong.
>which you just did in your last post anyways.
Also wrong, though I can see why you would take advantage of semantics to make it look like that is what I meant when I said, "I still haven't read hegel" is that "I still haven't read Frederic Beiser's 'Hegel'"
Lurkers do not be fooled by the shameful lies of this propagandist.

>>11125800
Schopenhauer was right.

>>11126463

fichte, schelling, kant, wolff, jacobi, leibniz, spinoza, and sure as shit aristotle.

>>11126463
>>11129054

also, if you really want more information for prereqs, these cambridge editions are fantastic for providing bibliographies that have citations from author as well as citations from the editor from the introduction.

i almost feel bad posting the pdf, but it starts on pg 830. if you can, please buy the book. its worth it.

https://www.daftarche.com/attachments/%DA%AF%D9%81%D8%AA%DA%AF%D9%88%DB%8C-%D8%A2%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF-2/926d1349907427-%DA%98%DB%8C%DA%98%DA%A9-%D9%88-%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%84%DA%A9%D8%AA%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D9%87%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C-hegel-science-logic.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG-jTWnIqd7-X0FKh1cp8irpqtWSQ&sig2=VgXwXuvroxt7r02cpSchCQ&cad=rjt

>>11126101
Being pretentious and stupid is one hell of a mixture. Especially when spiced up with basing your "philosophical knowledge" on short stanford articles, youtube videos and contemporary "philosophical" 10-page texts.

>>11125789
based

>>11129097
Fuck you crybaby