/lit/ - Literature

>>17522236
Filtered

Hegel was aware of demonic spirits and the power to be gained and did his best to put it into words

>>17522236
Why would you ever read this idiotic shit anyway?

>>17522236
I would hope you wouldn’t, considering it’s basically schizoposting

I think it has do to with ghosts and stuff.

>>17522409
Good point

reading it in German right now
pretty difficult
>after a Vorrede which is 10% of the whole book, comes the Einleitung
bros he's trolling, right? ... bros?

>>17522236
What gets me is how incredibly rare it is to hear someone say:

Yes, I broadly agree with Hegel's statements in the PoS relating to such and such, but I dsagree with his reasoning in this point and consider this whole concept to be inappropriately formed.

Mostly, with the exception of a smattering of philosophers who are are to get deeply into Hegel, yet also retain the ability to be clearly critical of him, people tend to fall into the camps of:

- Well, if you don't agree with him, it's clearly because you weren't good enough at understanding him to see that he was right.

and

- This whole project is rubbish so detached from any meaningful reality that there is no point in wasting your time.

What is, to Hegel, the equivalent of what Quine's "Two Dogmas" is to Kant?

>>17522236
most people dont, its peak german autism

>>17522236
It's a schizopost that got out of hand

Just read a secondary source or summary text lol faggot
>noooo i have to read everything for myself
Being being being itself being being itself itself geist bla bla
Thought communicated : shit nigger History is linear lol

>>17522236
its not written incredibly poorly you are simply too low intellect to grasp its brilliance

>>17522557
ok

>>17522236
>Substance is ‘living’ in that it is self-actualizing. It is ‘Being’ (das Sein), not simply one being among others. It is the ‘movement of self-positing’ rather than something that moves or posits itself since it cannot be distinguished from its activity. The activity of which, fundamentally constitutes its being and therefore it's inability to be discerned from its own self-positing. It is ‘self-positing’ in that it actualizes or manifests itself in concrete reality, trees, rocks, rivers, etc, all of which 'be' amongst other self-positing beings, due to their indiscernibility with it's activity which is its own self-positing. This self-positing of being acts as an intermediate stage between it's being and it's own negation of its being in reality.

>>17523622
It do be like that

>>17522557
>too low intellect

>>17523622
why does he contradict himself in what he means by being? He says that being is self-positing being among other beings between being and not being. So what is the being that acts as as an upper boundary of that self-positing? Is it just telos? But then it's not being, but potential being (Haven't read Hegel btw)

>>17523675
>An acorn is essentially the germ of an oak-tree. Similarly, the absolute is essentially the germ of the world. This might seem contradictory. First, it seems impossible that the absolute (or an acorn) should become itself; surely anything is already itself, at whatever stage it has reached, and has no need or tendency to become itself. (This difficulty might be resolved if, instead of saying ‘The absolute (or an acorn) becomes itself ’ we say ‘The absolute (or acorn) actualizes its potentiality. The acorn represents the in-itself of the worlds multiplicity of self-positing beings which act as the intermediate stage between their own negation (antithesis of it's own self-positing). The absolute becomes itself insofar as it has manifested itself in the self-positing of being and has actualised its potentiality as a whole.

>>17523727
Holy shit, why didn't we just stick with fucking Aristotle. No wonder analytics hate Hegel

>>17523750
isn't this just Aristotle but written in a convoluted and sophistic way?

>>17523727
This is probably one of the clearer passages I've read from Hegel, even though it's still shit