/lit/ - Literature

>>20783484
>*keep

>>20783484
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh_KE4VwPDk

>>20783484
>last systematic autist
>explain to a layman
You are basically asking for a Philosophy crash course. Get a textbook, anon. Not even joking, don't skip the Greeks. Hegel was the last systematic philosopher, and his "main point" is basically him coping with Kant (which was coping with Hume).

>>20783519
So all philosophy is coping against someone else's cope? Who was the first that set off the coping chain? Parmenides? Plato?

>>20783519
>last systematic autist
Am I chopped liver to you?!?! And I BTFO'd Hegel like it was nobody's business.

>>20783519
I am the last systemic philosopher

>>20783530
Yes, Philosophers say it is all a big conversation, but we all know that they are coping, seething and dilating. The first one was Thales. Everyone else is coping with Thales bs.

>>20783484
>Explain Hegel's philosophy to a layman
Aristotelian metaphysics in the language of post-Kantianism.

Spinozist rational pantheism of the Lessing and Herder (see God: Some Conversations) variety, "dynamized" by romantic thought so that it is an organic self-developing pantheism rather than a static monistic one. Hegel admired the early modern rise of autonomous and self-governing civil society (associated with the rise of constitutional states and democracies, and ruptures with dogmatic and arbitrary institutions like in the French Revolution), the bourgeoisie (the class of rational self-assertion and self-legislation), and Enlightenment rationalism, anti-irrationalism and intellectual anti-arbitrariness, so these became the "movement" of the pantheistic world's (Spirit's) self-development. The watchword of Enlightenment and modernity for romantics was freedom, understood in the peculiar sense of the right to freely develop and manifest one's own peculiarity in organic or dialectical fashion, like the artist "giving form" to the work of art.

So Spirit becomes the organically free process of the world in its development toward free and rational knowledge of itself, which is also the union of all apparent opposites (for example: moral duty enshrined in dogmatic laws + arbitrary anarchic freedom, being apparent opposites, are reconciled in the modern constitutional state "giving the law to itself").

Hegel became very popular with Prussian liberal and constitutional reformers in the period after the Napoleonic wars, when Prussia was rising to dominate Germany and Germans were trying to understand their own peculiar destiny in relation to revolutionary France and the Enlightenment and bourgeois modernity. Hegel provided a moderate but triumphalist vision of rational constitutional states emerging "organically" without the need for French ruptures or Jacobin terror. He became an institution when the University of Berlin, the foundation and model of all modern university systems, made him head of Philosophy, and there followed 10-15 years of dominance of relatively annoying Hegelian jargon spouters in the German upper classes, who basically used Hegel to express a confidence in the new Prussian state and the re-foundation of German society after the Napoleonic dissolution of the HRE and the rise of Prussia to dominance in Germany (with unification on the horizon in most people's minds). He was a way of expressing the confidence and purity and clarity of the new era. This didn't last long though.

His system is full of ambiguities and the jargon is notoriously "systematically ambiguous" (to use a fancy term for it). There are no orthodox Hegelians. Hegelianism split pretty quickly between left and right Hegelians, and conservatives and moderates gradually abandoned him because he was actually pretty modernist, e.g. he was very pro-civil society and pro-autonomy which not many Prussian statists wanted after 1840.

He also doesn't leave any room for irrationalism, revelation, or mysticism since Spirit is immanently rational.

>>20783640
What is pantheism. What is spirit and what is statistic monistic

>>20783679
Pantheism = the world/reality is a single whole, without anything outside it. Pan = all, theism = god, pantheism = the world is God, i.e., the highest metaphysical principle (God) didn't CREATE the world from beyond it. There is only one "thing" in existence ultimately, the world, and its highest principle is within itself, it is self-grounding.

Monistic = from "one" meaning similar to pantheism, "one-thing-ism." An example of dualism: there is an evil force and a good force, and they combine to create the world. This would mean there are two "fundamental" things that can't be reduced to eachother. Another form of dualism is if God created the world, so there are two fundamental things, the world and God. Monism = there is only one fundamental thing, the world itself. The differences WITHIN that thing are then a result of its "emanating," or developing, or whatever, but fundamentally they are all part of one world.

Static = the world simply "is," without change, it doesn't develop. Spinoza's pantheism/monism is static, it doesn't develop. The world exists, it has an infinity of "modes" (what exactly this means for Spinoza is controversial), and we only experience some of those modes (specifically, the two modes of Cartesianism: res extensa and res cogitans).

Hegel's generation really liked Spinozism, or pantheism, because it didn't like dualism, because it didn't like revealed religion that emphasizes God's dualistic "otherness" from the world and inaccessibility to rational thought. It wanted the world to be a single world-whole that is progressively accessible to human thought, and it wanted to see the world as a developing rational system reaching its culmination in man (see Herder's Ideas for a Philosophy of History). These ideas appeared in Goethe (kind of a pagan pantheistic nature mystic), Fichte (the world is the "I" or "Ego" differentiating itself), Schelling (similar to Fichte but with the world developing as nature and mind simultaneously).

Hegel knew and studied with all these guys, but wanted a pantheism that was purely rational, with no irrational remainders. In his system Spirit develops from immediate but undifferentiated knowledge of itself and "identity with itself," through stages of differentiation or "alienation" from itself (splitting into Thought and Being), and then finally reunion with itself in a higher form self-knowledge and identity (Thinking and Being recognizing themselves in eachother). Yes it's confusing and weird but it makes sense overall if you understand it in context. It's a beautiful vision. It's more in the details that it broke down, for example, if we've attained this "reunion of Thinking and Being," what does that actually mean? Also does that mean history is now over? Hegel was always vague on such things.

>>20783726
What does spirit mean in this context?

So if I put it in simpler terms you are saying that the being exists therefore it can think. And it can think therefore it exists. These two contradictions when taken together.... end history? I don't exactly follow. How is this linked with enlightenment era politics

Also wasn't the german state ultimately achieved through force

>>20783786
Spirit means the world in this sense. You have to understand that Hegel is an idealist. The core presuppositions of the average joe on the street is a misunderstood materialism. Materialism is the idea that, outside your immediate first person experience, there exists a realm that is not conscious and is totally unlike that which we experience. It tends to be assumed because we can see objects extending in space and there is object permanence. But matter itself according to a well informed materialist is a thing which is not conscious or aware. We are obviously conscious, and aware, and we can only understand the world through qualitative experiences. So for instance, the materialist can point to what frequency of light, in beats per minute, is the colour red, but any honest person must admit we never interact with beats per minutw, but with redness, which is a qualitative experience totally unlike a quantitative measurement (frequencies, mass, volume etc). So either you have to be a dualist, saying that there must be both mind and matter in the world, or you can do what idealists did in Germany, which is use Occam's razor and just do away with matter, since it is an abstraction intended to explain object permanence which can be explained in other ways. Hegel is an idealist, so his understanding of the world is that it happens in the mind, or in a way that is mind-like. The word "spirit" tends to mean consciousness, and in german more so as geist also means the actual mind.

>>20783931
NTA but thanks for these posts. Good stuff, simply put and little bits of historical context like you add is always very helpful.

>>20783786
Continuing from
>>20783931
You could picture it as this: Hegel says that all of the world is actually one person, that has no body but only a mind. It is surrounded eternally by nothing, but since all that exists is this one disembodied spirit, there is no time either, so all the thoughts it could ever had and all dreams it could ever dream are all happening at the same time, in an eternal present instant. This "person", the Spirit, decided also, in that eternal instant, that the only way to make all possible dreams and thoughts more "real", therefore making himself more real, is to actually explore them from a first person perspective. Since all possible instants of all possible timelines of all possible lives have already been dreamed in that eternal instant, the Spirit goes through each of them and starts "feeling" as if time was real. It purposefully forgets about what it truly is in the process, going further into Being (many beings). This will carry on through all the possible lives in nature, from primordial bacteria all the way to the pinnacle of thinking creatures and of evolution, when it finally remembers that it is Spirit and then achieves once again that eternal instant of having thought all things

it’s contradiction all the way down

>>20783931
>So for instance, the materialist can point to what frequency of light, in beats per minute, is the colour red, but any honest person must admit we never interact with beats per minutw, but with redness, which is a qualitative experience totally unlike a quantitative measurement (frequencies, mass, volume etc). So either you have to be a dualist, saying that there must be both mind and matter in the world,

Not sure if I agree with this line of reasoning. But I see

>Germany, which is use Occam's razor and just do away with matter, since it is an abstraction intended to explain object permanence which can be explained in other ways. Hegel is an idealist, so his understanding of the world is that it happens in the mind, or in a way that is mind-like.

So according to him matter doesn't exist and its all in our heads? Or is matter a mind in itself(however that works). This is starting to sound like some kind of Chtulhu mythos

>>20783959
I'm not sure I would read this into Hegel myself

>>20783640
I’m a starving child starving to death and this is the very last thing I have ever read. Gootbye

>>20784035
A life well spent. Congratulations on making it to the end.

>>20783959
With this explanation I kind of now understand the title phenomenology if spirit.

I can like kind of make sense that the entire world is one single subjective experiencing itself. (I'm assuming here only the experience is real and the physical, which is an outside matter world in itself independent of experience doesn't exist) .

But I have few issues. How do we know that the world as it experiences itself is same as how humans do it. Since we know that our experience is incomplete and does not entail objects in all their detail. It looks like another duality props up here.

And the rest of what's been presented here is kind of creeping into pure conjecture territory for me.

>>20783959
>>20784100
I hope this thread doesn't die because I'll be awaiting your response. This is interesting stuff

Hegel was a piece of shit know-it-all redditor and wanted to have a career by larping as an intellectual while not being viewed as a has-been christian scholar, so Heglel had to find a way to get people believe that his work is ''verifiable'' like a scientific work and he hopped in the secular rationalist train. A common trait of the atheists is to idolize lawyers, they think they are elite because they squeak a few random latin words in, so he became one and was acclaimed by other lawyer drones.
The best way to do this is by being an atheist, ie a guy who is obsessed with the atheist society and crams as much logic and rationalism into this atheist narcissistic analysis of the society. Heglel is the Deleuze of the french revolution. He is horrendous.

Don't forget that this piece of shit of hegel literally wanted a new religion which was popular and rational. The asshole literally said this. Like any franc mason bugman from the revolution, he was very antichristian, something very helpful to have a career, and he just swapped the one true god for the god of reason. Pure room temperature IQ. And people loved him for this. Muh I saw Napoleon today, look at me! Hegel would have made an insta story with this.

Hegel the piece shit physicist literally said there can't be any more planets that was discovered at the time. This is the power of the atheist who fucking loves science and yet suck at it. EXACTLY LIKE KANT...He was proven wrong and never touched maths and science ever again. Literally BTFO by a planet. FUCKING REKT. He never recovered. He knew he was a fraud who would never be seen as a scientist if his audience was educated, so he went full guru voodoism in front of gullible bourgeois (read germans and females).

After this mental breakdown, he wanted to systematize all this shallow hype of french revolution through the rationalist ultimate goal of unifying intellectual spooks and other dichotomies, and of course he completely failed. His whole oeuvre is a pile of bulky books full of jargon and word salads moving the goal posts all the fucking time. He was Lacan, Foucault and Derrida put together and deluding himself he was kant's true heir.
Now wonder a jew neet like Marx who fucking loves materialism and yet gets triggered by derivatives idolized this piece of shit. 100 years later all you get is this narcissistic crap about dialectical materialism and all marxists as their sole defense claiming that Marxism works but it has never been tried. ha yes very scientific, assholes.

Heglel is r8ddit. He is a pure product of the french revolution and the deification of the allegedly rationalist public servants. Heglel proves that Atheism is narcissism and sterile intellectualism which was created only to include the atheist scholars in the ruling class, instead of the priests.

>>20784156
>redditor
stopped reading right there

>>20784156
The whole Napoleon thing in European history seems so gay.
>hoho we have overthrown the evil Christian ruling class
>instead we have installed a ruling class made from a family we found in a random village somewhere and adopted a made up pseudo-religion that's mostly about relabeling ideas so we forget they're basically Christian

>>20784156
>A common trait of the atheists is to idolize lawyers,

Lolwut?

Anyway from what that other anon says Hegel doesn't sound like the kind of person other atheists would like. He rejects materialism and his theory of the world being a mind can be used by the religious to imply that God exists.

>>20783484
Hegelians are the distilled essence of arbitrary argot gatekeepers and are the first to admit that they autisticly spent 2 days per page Phenomenology of Spirit and still don't understand all of it. Hegel must have been an excellent orator though, because people won't shut the fuck up about him and Schopenhauer quietly seethed in an empty lecture hall while Hegel's class was full.

>>20784156
too long didn't read

>>20784024
>So according to him matter doesn't exist and its all in our heads?

It's not this simple. German Idealism, which is a movement that Hegel is basically the capstone of, starts with Kant demonstrating in his Critique of Pure Reason that there is a fundamental gap between how WE PERCEIVE objects of ordinary sense experience (We can call this the phenomenon or the thing-for-us) and how that object exists divorced from our perception of it (we'll call this one the noumenon or the thing-in-itself). The problem is that this thing-in-itself for Kant is inaccessible, since just by perceiving objects you are automatically filtering it through your human senses and subjecting it to normative human assumptions of what "an object" is. We really only have access to the "thing-for-us". This basically should have been the end of Enlightenment Empiricism (they kept chugging along, those sons of bitches). But this left us with a big problem: if we can't know the thing-in-itself, how can say anything about anything?

Hegel's big innovation was to propose that this "thing-in-itself" ALSO only exists in our mind (since, again, we're the ones projecting this quality onto objects) and to basically not bother with it. This means that what we actually need to be thinking about is "things-for-us" ie Phenomenon. It's also not good enough to just think about these how "things-for-us" are right now, but how they developed through history, since these "things-for-us" right now are not the same as they would have been, say, 1000 years ago.

This means that we need to consider and explain how things like Truth, Consciousness, and Society have developed phenomenologically through history to be able to explain how we have gotten to our own position at all. We'll find that our perceptions of reality, taken as a whole, went through many stages or shapes (Gestalt) which had fundamental contradictions (at least insofar as these contradictions are things-for-us) that needed to be resolved sequentially. This resolving happens through a process of transcendental dialectics via Aufheben (just look it up). Hegel, in his Phenomenology of Spirit, is really attempting to explain all of Reality up to Hegel himself.

I'm not a great Hegel scholar nor do I pretend to be, so undoubtedly there are minor ambiguities and errors here but I think this is good enough to explain, generally, what Hegel is doing.

>>20784156
>Muh I saw Napoleon today, look at me! Hegel would have made an insta story with this.
already imagining that pointing bugman wojak meme with Hegel

>>20784100
Same guy here, it was an analogy, shouldn't be taken too far, also, it is not purely hegelian, that little story about the one person that exists in nothingness is first a summary/myth to understand most of metaphysics, in particular monistic metaphysics. Each metaphysician ends up having his or her own flavour, according to minor or sometimes major adjustments that are made for the system to account for reality/mantain rationality/not contradict itseof, etc. Let me provide you some examples of flavours:
>the one person, pure Subjectivity, called "God", is completely unlike all Objects, called "Creation". All the aspects that make us persons, personality, emotions, sense perception, memories, are Objects, therefore God is completely unlike all those things. God exists in a different dimension which is composed entirely of Himself, and since there are no limits as there is no thing "around him" as it were, he is infinite. He actualizes (i.e "makes actual", more "real") all things from this dimension but he is not ~really any of us since our spirit is a dimensionless point, like a portal from his dimension to ours
This above is basically (~kind of) Christian metaphysics
>The one person in Eternity is also entirely different from our experience, lacking also a 'Will' and being therefore more like the code of a computer, imagine an infinite string of code that has in it all possible lives and worlds etc. Within that code there is also a "code" that can read the code (the Nous), and within that code that reads the code there is a code that is more like a consciousness, but that can experience firsthand all possible conscious experiences (World Soul)
Above is a rough sketch of neoplatonism
>This one person in eternity is actually pure Will, that is to say that instant thing that happens whenever you want and desire something you think is good, it is good because it is "completing" the person, which aboves all wills to live
This is roughly Schopenhauer.

And so on. Note how these are rough analogies, because obviously these guys take entire books or literary traditions to actually make their points, and this is a greentext myth to explain in rough images what they are talking about. There is kind of a consensus, based on the investigation of reality, that Subject always needs to exist, since we can't conceive of a world without any subject experiencing (a world entirely black and empty would still have you "looking at it"; a world seen on spectator mode would still have you watching it; there really is no way we can ever "not be there")

>>20785108
>Hegel's big innovation was to propose that this "thing-in-itself" ALSO only exists in our mind (since, again, we're the ones projecting this quality onto objects) and to basically not bother with it. This means that what we actually need to be thinking about is "things-for-us" ie Phenomenon

So the pomo's are more or less right to say that truth is completely subjective and completely within our own mind? That if we tell ourselves enough times that something is true it eventually becomes true within our worldview?

Also I'm retarded.

>>20783484
The ridiculously short version is Hegel believed everything was always passing from a state of nothingness into being, this is a process called "becoming". History is becoming. Everything is always becoming. Including consciousness, in fact if one consciousness becomes aware of another one and interacts with it, it becomes more self-conscious and aware of it's own consciousness. Or in the case of a Servant and Master, the Servant through interacting with the Master becomes more aware of his servitude or lack of freedom: his servitude is in a state of becoming.
Put enough of these consciousnesses together and you get institutions like families, communities, towns, cities, and states. The state is sort of a consciousness, or at least an amalgamation of it. And in the traditional sense states make history. Even though someone like Napoleon was of a single consciousness, a single man, Hegel believed he contained within him his entire age, the states, everything.
That's pretty much it without using technical terms like "geist" or "dialectic" and without getting into the whole "was he a pantheist" debate.
Hegel believed that everything was always becoming. History is the record of becoming.

>>20785270
What it means is that we don't have a Correspondence Theory of Truth where you say "we know that X is true because we observed X in Nature". Rather what we actually have is Coherence Theory of Truth where all "Truth-Systems" necessarily start with axioms (regardless of whether you're aware of it or not).

This means that all Truth is ultimately circular-- your circle just needs to be big enough to encompass all of Reality.

>>20783484
>Summarize what Hegel is trying to say and what he means.
He is trying to create a Theory of History, which in turn becomes a Theory of Everything, all in an attempt to ascribe a pattern to History that would repeat after his death. He is trying to predict the future. This task proves so titanic that he ends up answering all questions there are. Philosophers after Hegel (PBUH) end up seething and coping because he already explained everything yet philosophers after him tried showing that he didn't and pointed to his prose being too obscure (Schopenhauer), or him missing something (Marx), then philosophers and historians would end up agreeing with him (Annales school), then disagreeing (Popper), and we end up here in the Present, where Hegel has essentially been proven right and the last 200 years one big cope for/against Hegel.

But such things are to be expected: the 2,300 years between Plato and Hegel are one big cope for/against Plato (for the longest time the cope was so deep they were pretending to cope for/against Plato's student and not Plato himself, hahaha)

That's the shortest summary, for a lay man. Enjoy.

>>20785293
If you're not a determinist then Hegel explains nothing.

>>20785293
Next summary for a lay man:

His Theory of History is as follows. History is driven by the tension that exists in the dialectic of one thesis against another, and History eventually ends up clarifying after the tension is resolved into a wholly "different," more perfect synthesis that is like a third way between the thesis and the antithesis, or as Aristotle would put it, a golden mean

Hegel thus derives that the Future will be beautiful as it will be the realization of the ultimate perfect synthesis. This is the bright, harmonious future/vision that is simply called a "Hegelian" one in conversations.

>>20785308
In what sense do you think Hegel is a determinist

>>20785318
And final summary of Hegel:

ultimately, he is very similar to Plato. Hegel believes in absolute idealism, and he believes that the ideal state is one which successfully imports the ideal reality into the material world. this is what Plato believed too

>>20785319
Just read his lectures on the philosophy of history. Every movement of the weltgeist is predicated on geography, what came before, the next evolution closer to the realization of rational freedom (spirit knowing itself), etc. I don't see how that's not deterministic. Then again, a philosophy of history seems to need determinism if it is to explain anything.

>>20785330
I don't think his theory of HIstory is as strictly causal as you make it out to be. Hegel was a Typological thinker where the previous Gestalt only retroactively becomes "necessary" as such once the new Gestalt is achieved. He can only look back and show how we got here, he doesn't try and predict the future.

From the Philosophy of Right
>When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.

He knew that his philosophy was the fruit of his era and would necessarily be sublated.

>>20785361
But Hegel tries to speculate about the future. Under what pretenses is he justified in doing so, if his philosophy isn't deterministic?

>>20785377
Speculate is all he can do.

>>20785380
>>20785377
>>20785361
He can only speculate about the specifics of the Future, but the underlying nature of the Future he knows with certainty

>>20785108
What is enlightenment empericism?

So, what hegel basically says is that experience(in our minds) is all that exists and all that matters. Am I right?

>This means that we need to consider and explain how things like Truth, Consciousness, and Society have developed phenomenologically through history to be able to explain how we have gotten to our own position at all. We'll find that our perceptions of reality, taken as a whole, went through many stages or shapes (Gestalt) which had fundamental contradictions (at least insofar as these contradictions are things-for-us) that needed to be resolved sequentially. This resolving happens through a process of transcendental dialectics via Aufheben (just look it up). Hegel, in his Phenomenology of Spirit, is really attempting to explain all of Reality up to Hegel himself.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elab on this a bit further? Does he really give an account for history? Not just human history but world history?

>>20783484
People talk about things and they disagree, and the consensus opinion shift sback and fourth between extremes until it rests at a middle ground.

This is a "local" ideology and specific to communities. Hegel wanted communities to be the same people for the longest amount of time possible, because this would perfect the "dialectic" which is what I described initially.

Leftists dont know that Hegel wanted homogeneous communities and thought that this made these communities stronger. The more developed the dialectic of a given community, the more optimal the function within that community.

>>20785380
But why try to speculate AT ALL?

>>20783519
Heidegger?

>>20785388
Hegel had massive lectures on the philosophy of history.
>>20785380
What's the point of speculation if it can't be done honestly? If Hegel isn't a determinist then he has to concede that he can't even do that. I haven't read Philosophy of Right, only his lectures on the Philosophy of History, but it seems like we're honing in on two different Hegels.

>>20785388
After the scientific revolution we started applying the same deductive principles not only to Nature but to things like Ethics and Religion. Kant's work was really a reaction to David Hume who showed that things like Ethics weren't rooted in anything "real" and were therefore pure convention. Kant's reaction to this was to show that his methods of "pure reason" were self-annihilating (thus, a "Critique of Pure Reason")

>So, what hegel basically says is that experience(in our minds) is all that exists and all that matters.
Sure, he doesn't do away with things like Nature wholesale, he just understands them as extensions of our own consciousness. (the fact that the category of "Nature" exists is, after all, something WE impose on it) I haven't read his Philosophy of Nature so I can't really give details.

>Does he really give an account for history? Not just human history but world history?
Sometimes he'll venture out pretty abstractly in demonstrating how consciousness is "self-othering" and deals with the immediate vs the mediate and perceptions of "things-in-and-for-themselves". But many times, especially later on in the Phenomenology his pretty clearly pointing to specific Philosophers, Art movements (german romantics), he even specifically points to the personage of Jesus Christ at the end of the Religion section. He's trying to talk about everything that's necessary to explain how Spirit comes to know itself (through Hegel it turns out, since he's writing it)

>>20785398
>But why try to speculate AT ALL?
That is my objective. Objective Truth exists. It is possible to ascertain it for the first time in the history of Humanity thanks to the incredible progress that science and philosophy has achieved.

The Future is discrete. It is possible not only to speculate but to predict it. We know we're headed to a bright, harmonious Hegelian future. The only questions are:
>when
>at what cost
not if.

My goal is to bring us to that future as soon as possible and with as little suffering as possible. It is also the Meaning of my Life.

He applies Jesus to the bureaucracy.
>>20783519
Tok simplur then

>>20785398
>>20785452
>why speculate
because that's how we got here

>>20785539
Maybe we should stop speculating.

>>20785546
I consider myself more a student of literary criticism than philosophy so I'll leave that up to you guys

>>20785546
>Maybe we should stop speculating
I agree, hence why I'm writing a book titled:
>A Boring Dystopia, or the Problem with Capitalist Peace:
>Protocols of the Capital, Creation of Identity and Praxis for the Dark Ages.
>The Metamodern Manifesto: "What Then Is Required? Blood" or a Completion of Baudrillard
or "A Boring Dystopia" in short

it will answer all the questions even the ones you didn't even know you had, and cut all speculation for eternity, offering one sure-fire path to the bright, harmonious Hegelian Future forever and ever

>>20785546
Go ahead. I'll continue forward and leave you behind.

>>20785570
that quote is from Nietzsche btw, but whereas he refers to his Nietzschean nonsense, the blood I'm referring to is menstrual blood being stopped by pregnancy and then released with birth. which is what's required. birth. babies. we need babies. people aren't reproducing anymore. we ain't gonna achieve the Hegelian future without babies. we ain't gonna achieve anything without babies. and we won't achieve full automation without young people to innovate!

and "protocols of the Capital" is an obvious reference to the protocols of the learned elders of zion

essentially I will attack Jewishness in the most Jewish way (as I'm 1/4 Jewish): by not attacking the Jews at all. it will be a way to name Them without getting cancelled. we will win, bros

>>20784024
>So according to him matter doesn't exist and its all in our heads?
mpt that anon, but matter and our heads would be to aspects of the same things, all matter is an object for our perseption and all perseption can only manifest in matter, an object
the implications of that is what the phenomenology of spirit is all about

>>20785276
That's mostly just Heraclitus. More specifically, for Hegel there's such a thing as determinate negation, a specific kind of relation that transforms the way a subject sees and interacts with the world, and this change is understood not as a simple relativistic shift from one paradigm to another, but as logically necessary.
to oversimplify, you could compare a dialectic motion to what happens when the way science describes a given natural phenomenon changes. The change in perspective isn't something that you could have inferred previously, nor is it subjective, nor is it objective in the sense of being the 'final truth'. It's both subjective and objective, in a sense, and at the same time it's neither.
Absolute knowing, in the phenomenology, is the point where the philosophical subject understand that it's always already result and agent of this infinite process, and that there can be no final truth, only the inexhaustible horizon of the negative.

>>20785627
keep debating what old people meant instead of trying to craft a meaning of your own. dont be a follower, be followed

>>20785666
My finely tuned instincts tell me to always do the opposite of anything you suggest.

>>20785666
very appropriate 666
you find your own position by thinking honestly about what other thinkers have written. Hegel is very close to what I myself find plausible, so in engaging with what he has to say I'm also figuring out what I think myself.

>>20785666
>keep debating what old people meant instead of trying to craft a meaning of your own.
If your meaning is not inextricably tied to the meaning of Reality writ large, you are lost.

>>20785678
I'm alright with you remaining a follower ultimately, because you might end up following me. When you approximate objective Truth as well as I did, you will always end up being Right no matter the circumstance. This is also the conclusion of Hegel's Philosophy of the Right

>>20785687
into the filter you go

>>20785679
>Hegel is very close to what I myself find plausible
Yes! Hegel cracked the objective Truth. I agree. But even he admitted he doesn't know everything. But 200 years have already passed and no one has surpassed Hegel yet.

I will. Will you? Not if you keep talking instead of doing

Remember the 2 ultimate Enemies of Humanity:
the Capital, and fascism.
liberalism is the way
young Hegel would agree

>>20785704
Liberalism has its foundations in naive british empiricism and is definitely not what Hegel would want lol. Hegel would want the total Fraternity of Man. That is to say, of course, the Commonwealth/Republic.

EVERY MAN A KING-- ANSWERING ONLY TO THE KING OF KINGS-- Christ Jesus

>>20785724
thats liberalism, you dolt. and you claim moral and intellectual honesty. lol. please stop reading Hegel because you're bound to misinterpret him and end up advocating for fascism and genocide if you're retarded like that

>>20785577
You're not moving forward. You're not moving at all. It's a dangerous illusion that could get all of us killed.

>>20785735
Liberalism is Utilitarian you dolt, it has nothing to say about the dialectic of Spirit & Word

>>20785737
To go somewhere you first have to conceive of going there. To do anything you have to speculate. Those that don't speculate can't think or accomplish anything.

>>20785704
I'm a 33rd degree patriarch in the fascist Capital. I am the real humanity and you are my enemy. I gave you everything and you spit in my face because you consider the gifts "oppression".

>>20785753
>I'm a 33rd degree patriarch in the fascist Capital. I am the real humanity and you are my enemy.
You're joking but the CIA unironically acts like this and will kill you if you become too dangerous to the Capital. so I crafted the following statement:
>my trip is just my insurance policy (copyright), nothing more

>I will never commit suicide because my life has meaning. I will never die in a random accident because I always stay vigilant. I'm not against America or the CIA. I am only against the forces of the Capital. CIA is one of them. But it doesn't have to be. I am vital to U.S. natl. interest. The Capital is not. Do not kill me, I am valuable to U.S. natl. interest.

>>20785746
Those who speculate, even when they're right, accomplish nothing but temporary satiation, a fulfillment that often undermines the grounds that spawned that desire in the first place. On one hand, I'd imagine that the philosophers of the past would look to the stable peace of Europe or the technological marvels of the modern world and be dazzled by what was achieved by their vision. On the other hand, I imagine them looking at the character of our leaders and our society, struggling with transgenderism and obesity, and walk away with disgust. Despite our drive to speculate about what the future holds, the future always seems to be indeterminate, with progress in one domain causing an equal and opposite reaction in another, mainly technology versus virtue.

So, why speculate? You don't know shit.

>>20785761
This dude doesn't believe in Revelation, laugh at him

>>20785761
>even when they're right, accomplish nothing
If I speculate about the existence of an island and when I go to check, the island exists, I accomplished an entire island.

>>20785528
I hate this shit, I was writing decent response and I accidentally closed the tab.
Anyway, I will make it even dirtier now. People weren't sure about what could be known. Kant somewhat solved this problem by dividing things in two: the world "as it is" and "the world as we perceive it". Which definitely made a lot of people seethe, because "what do you mean by there is a world as it is and that we can't access it somehow?".
This is where Hegel comes in (I'm not going to explain all his stuff, because I'm just some layperson), he thought of the world as something "alive", that would grow and change like some kind of plant or whatever, but this change is orderly and stages. So for him the key to grasp "the world" was history, and that the world grows into stages that increase consciousness and freedom.
Some say that he was a conservatist, others think that he was a revolutionary, that would be mainly because of his other stuff, which relates to the way such things would happen. I can give you a spoiler, and say that he is wrong anyway, so it doesn't really matter that much (people nowadays don't believe that history follows some kind of "linear growth" pattern). There are other things too and multiple interpretations of it, that is why I said that the OP is basically asking for a crash course in Philosophy. Because I approached a single aspect of it (historicism), and I had to wrote all of this to explain it in a really gross fashion. There are lots of other things that he thought.

>>20785761
that's why I finished speculating and started acting

The Pneumatic instruction for life:
>1. work with likeminded Pneumatics for the Pneumatic goal
>2. get rich (acquire capital)
>3. get into politics
>4. kill the Capital by subverting the Capital
good luck

>>20785755
>You're joking
Only a little. In the context you've established I'm mostly serious. You set yourself up as my enemy. You apparently reject everything I value and propose to replace it with some vague versions of ideas I got over when I was 15.

>>20785765
Speculation is not revelation, seeing that it is a manmade activity motivated by petty human aims. I'm reminded of how Maimonides complained that, even if one had perfect intellect, morals, and imagination, prophecy may still yet elude him.
>>20785767
And if your discovery of the island leads the discovery of gauno deposits, leading to material exploitation of the island until it is nothing but an excavated crater, ready to be reclaimed by the waves, then you've destroyed the island for eternity. That seems to be the trend of speculation. You accomplish nothing.

>>20785769
Revelation is manmade and Man = God

>>20785778
>You accomplish nothing
I accomplished things. You then ruined those accomplishments through greed. Blaming the one that gave you information for you being unable to use that information productively is incredibly retarded. Being against "speculation" in general is being against thinking and doing. You're proposing complete stagnation, that the ideal state for life is a flatworm and all humans should strive to return to that state.

>>20785793
>>20785778
wrong reply

>>20785796
If your accomplishments can be so easily ruined by others then they were never "yours" to begin.
>Blaming the one that gave you information for you being unable to use that information productively is incredibly retarded.
What does it even mean to use that information "productively"? There's a strong argument to be made that that island WAS used productively in that case. The nitrogen from the guano deposits were used to fertilize barren lands and feed the starving. It only cost us an island. You wanted the island, but you never even thought about the tradeoff between island and starvation.

The problem with speculation is that it can never fully define its own parameters of value in a perennial fashion. Hence it ends up eating its own tail with the change it spurs. Isn't it worth looking at the pattern of speculation? The more we speculate, the stronger humanity becomes through technology, but we as humans grow weaker. This is not a coincidence, and it's likely not to change anytime soon.

>>20785793
that's just a category error. means nothing to me. even the Bible tells man to create, as we were made in His image. so in a way we are gods and were always meant to be gods. but capital G God is stronger.

>>20785775
what do you value? have you ever heard of hyperreality? if you're a slave of the Capital, everything you hold to be True is merely hyper-true, i.e. ultimately false

>>20785843
>If your accomplishments can be so easily ruined by others then they were never "yours" to begin.
This is braindead. You said speculation is useless. I gave you an example where it's useful if you want land.
>You wanted the island,
I was just exploring implications of the data I had, speculating. The speculation produced an island. You used it poorly. The speculation itself only added to the process, there's no downside to it. The downsides you talk about are all completely separate from the power of speculation. Your logic applied consistently would reject anything that gives you any sort of power over the world because "you'll just misuse it".

>>20785872
>You said speculation is useless. I gave you an example where it's useful if you want land.
And why would you want that land? Also, that whole point. WANT. You missed the point where I emphasized that the wants destroy themselves. Hence it's no accomplishment.
>>20785872
What does it even mean to use it poorly!? If you just want to find and preserve islands, then sure. If you wanted to feed impoverished nations by providing them with artificial fertilizer, then it was a success. The point is that you don't know what you even want with speculation, at least not in a way that prevents speculation from undermining the grounds for its existence when it begins to come into fruition. Speculation has to have a goal, does it not? If your speculation fails to accomplish said goal, or if accomplishing said goal destroys what you cherish most, then it accomplishes nothing.
>Your logic applied consistently would reject anything that gives you any sort of power over the world because "you'll just misuse it".
And when would the logic ever be wrong? Speculation is clearly too dangerous. At this point, speculating without taking into consideration the 100% chance of misuse is pure negligence.

>>20785851
I see some value in pretty much everything you want to undermine and I see no value in anything you say.
The phenomena you're trying to reference is not specific to your hysteria about le "Capital". Sure the system is a demon or whatever and so is everything else you deal with. Your chair is possessed by a chair demon and when you sit on it you submit as a slave to the emergent simulated reality constructed by the demon to seduce you into being dependent on it. Demanding to frame it that way doesn't serve any purpose but demonizing chairs.

>>20785905
>And why would you want that land?
I don't need to want land. It's independent from the value of speculation. If I want land I have access to it through speculation, without speculation I have access to less. You're promoting being less powerful as a principle that's always good. This is the dumbest imaginable claim that can only lead to endless misery as you can never deal with anything that might cause you misery.
You're speculating right now to make your mindless point that speculating shouldn't be done.

>>20785927
>If I want land I have access to it through speculation, without speculation I have access to less.
It doesn't matter if you want land or not because your speculation will eventually destroy the grounds that made you want the land in the first place. If you think you can fill the endless void that is desire without losing everything you value in the end, you are mistaken.
>You're promoting being less powerful as a principle that's always good. This is the dumbest imaginable claim that can only lead to endless misery as you can never deal with anything that might cause you misery.
I assume you're familiar with Daoism and Buddhism, no? Both traditions make claims about the ephemeral nature of the world, of desire, etc., and how attempting to control it causes the deepest misery of them all. I'm neither a Daoist nor a Buddhist, but I think they're onto something powerful here.
>You're speculating right now to make your mindless point that speculating shouldn't be done.
Fair point. You got me. It seems we're doomed to speculation, aren't we? But can't it be done better? Our speculation is mindless, especially if we're able to zoom out to see how one speculative venture eventually destroys itself as the world changes in its image. But is it doomed to be forever mindless? I hope we can move away from the island example and toward this idea.

>>20785909
>I see some value in pretty much everything you want to undermine
because you're a hylic, i.e. (converting Gnostic teachings to the Modern Age), a slave of the Capital. you cling onto the hyperreality because it's everything you've ever known

but as the Pneumatic creed ($3) teaches:
>1. Any force which disagrees with the Truth OR otherwise tries to discourage the spread of the Truth in various ways, is a malignant force.
>2. There are only two malignant forces: the Capital and its Slaves (hylics).
>3. All more or less mentally healthy hylics can become psychics/pneumatics. Only deeply mentally ill hylics are doomed to remain hylics.
>4. Anyone who is not with the Truth scatters.
4. is empirically proven by evolution (natural selection and reproduction rate)
>5. I shall not fear in my pursuit of Truth, which is equal to the pursuit of Gnosis or Knowledge. As Socrates, when facing execution for my pursuit of Truth, I shall not fear.
you are likely salvageable

>>20785960
>our speculation will eventually destroy
There's nothing inherent about speculation that destroys. You add the destructive process based on greed and desire and then blame speculation.
>But can't it be done better?
More of it is better and reveals more. We map more area including abstract areas that tell us how to deal with greed etc.

>>20785989
>There's nothing inherent about speculation that destroys.
I agree. Yet it's almost 100% guaranteed. Can you think of a speculation that isn't driven by desire? Not even a desire for the Good? I can't.
>More of it is better and reveals more. We map more area including abstract areas that tell us how to deal with greed etc.
And how much of that mapping process has actually resulted in the ability to restrain greed and such? Besides, I'm not even sure if greed was even the problem in our island example. Recall that the guano deposits were used to feed starving people. That doesn't sound like a cut-and-dry case of vice.

>>20785981
>a slave of the Capital
You're a slave of chairs with nothing to offer. Competent anons provided a lot of basic insight into what Hegel was about in this thread. You keep referencing names like Hegel but can't provide any insights, either original or from the names you reference.

>>20786006
because I have basic humility (which you don't) and don't want to hijack this thread with my own teachings. just laying food for thought (the objective of this thread, among other things)

>>20786001
>Can you think of a speculation that isn't driven by desire?
There are no actions that are not driven by desire including ascetic actions about "denying" desire.

>>20786013
>don't want to hijack this thread with my own teachings
But it's okay to hijack it to repeat empty platitudes about Capital and how you will save us all from it?
You tried to give some insights into Hegel like the more competent anons did. Compare your posts to theirs.
This guy >>20783640 will save me from the chair demons through education and reason while you jerk off bound to your chair forever, not saving anyone.

>>20786015
Buddhism strives not to deny desire but to eliminate it.

>>20785361
>When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.
It sounds like philosophical speculation loses out to some other kind of speculation. Philosophy is left in the dust. Probably always has been. Even Aristophanes runs laps around Plato.

>>20786086
Yes but why? Desire motivates the attempt. The one that's not controlled by desire acts mostly the same outwardly. He's not controlled by desire either way, as something to resent and eliminate or something to venerate.

>>20786117
>Yes but why? Desire motivates the attempt.
That's something I've been grappling with. Desire for the highest good that one can contemplate? A reaction against desire after learning of its consequences? It's hard to think about desire precisely. That's why I've been fascinated by Plato's division of the soul into three parts, including one explicitly desirous part, yet with two seemingly desirous parts if one looks beneath the surface. Eros seems to prioritize the here and now, but thumos seems to prioritize something that one grasps eternally, by faith or bond.

So... would we be motivated by desire or faith? Is there a difference? And what if our faith is wrong, or at least needs to evolve to fully realize itself? Fascinating questions.
>The one that's not controlled by desire acts mostly the same outwardly. He's not controlled by desire either way, as something to resent and eliminate or something to venerate.
And how would you know this? I'm curious.

>>20783484
there's immediate sense perception
but i can also prove that there is a truth besides immediate perception!
stay tuned and I will totally do this bro just trust the process. trust the dialectic bro

>>20786158
>Is there a difference?
Not physically but the way you frame the difference is interesting and probably has something very useful to it somehow, it's a hidden island, probably full of guano. Physically we know the brain is doing basically the same thing as in the motivation systems that lead to action always operate using the same principles and chemicals.
>how would you know this?
It's just logic but I also heard a bunch of "teachers" saying similar things. Being controlled by the goal to eliminate the thing is control just the same. The logical causal chain traced back from your action to reject desire leads back to desire as the cause so it's what controls you.

>>20786222
Motivation without desire... hmmm...

>>20786111
Yes Philosophy merely demonstrates Truth to the understanding, it doesn't produce it.

>>20786260
What produces understanding then?

>>20786244
You want the object of desire to be very abstract, a higher ideal you can't reach that aligns with "natural law" or whatever, as in don't fight reality including desire.
Then you get the kind of asceticism people tend to respect where you find it relatively easy to reject your short term desires if they don't align with the higher ideals.

>>20786271
Revelation (the poet's (prophet's) job)

>>20786278
Why are we so bad at poetry (I mean the arts broadly) these days, then? Is it unironically over?

>>20786288
In the west? I mean literacy rates are way down and late empire usually isn't the time for great poetry (but a pretty good time for satire, historically). Regardless we haven't even caught up to James Joyce yet, yet alone surpass him. So if you want our Poet-Prophet then look to Joyce

>>20786244
I actually confused desire itself and the idea of "desire" in that post. I keep shitting on people for confusing the map and the territory but it's not that easy, which is why I guess people should be shat on more for it.
We're always controlled by desire but the guy focused on rejecting it is controlled by the idea itself, he's completely wrapped up in "desire".

>>20786297
I meant the arts broadly. They seem to be getting worse and worse. And not just due to the lack of funding. Our elites seem to want to do away with all quality whatsoever.
>>20786308
>I actually confused desire itself and the idea of "desire" in that post.
What do you mean by that?
>We're always controlled by desire but the guy focused on rejecting it is controlled by the idea itself, he's completely wrapped up in "desire".
What's the solution then? We get wrapped up in desire because we realize it's the apex to surmount. Once we understand it, we can do away with it.

>>20786321
>I meant the arts broadly. They seem to be getting worse and worse
Again this is just a product of the fact that we're living in late Empire. Look at the late Roman Empire-- plenty of derivative and completely forgettable art. It's not a product of "modernity" or anything, this basically happens every time.

>>20786336
I don't care for cyclical history. I'm not a determinist. I like to break cycles.

>>20786321
>What do you mean by that?
The concept of desire is different from the actual thing. The actual thing is the process that motivates. The idea is our conceptualization of that process.
The logical causal chain of any action will lead back to some kind of desire, like you pointed out with the Plato stuff, that desire can be pointed at very different things like something higher (thumos or whatever) or something base (eros).
For someone obsessed about "eliminating" desire the highest ideal that's behind all his actions is anti-desire, an idea about desire. The process behind his action leads back to the idea so he's not only controlled by desire like everyone but also the idea of "desire" as his sort of god.
>we can do away with it.
This doesn't make any sense. Without desire nothing happens. If that's what you want and removing desire is more important than anything there are simple household tools that can help you reach that place of no desire or action.

>>20786350
Not Cyclical my friend-- Helicoidal

>>20786039
>You tried to give some insights into Hegel like the more competent anons did. Compare your posts to theirs.
Because OP is a lay man and their explanations say nothing to a lay man. They're retarded.

>>20786378
>This doesn't make any sense. Without desire nothing happens. If that's what you want and removing desire is more important than anything there are simple household tools that can help you reach that place of no desire or action.
How do you think Buddha existed then after reaching enlightenment?

>>20786446
>How do you think Buddha existed then after reaching enlightenment?
He either didn't reach any real enlightenment or understood that transcending desire is about not letting the idea control you. Did he stop eating after "enlightenment"? If not it wasn't what you imagine.
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

>>20786441
your "summaries" of hegel were dogshit no offence

>>20783484
If you already understand Kant then Hegel is just a footnote. If you didn't read Kant then you won't learn anything.

>>20786461
he's never going to get it lol. let the tripfag go on his ego trip for a while.

>>20786461
yours is empty criticism unless you summarize him better to a lay man than I did

>>20786475
ok
>>20785108
>>20785291
>>20785361
>>20785499
enjoy

>>20786481
that summary fails at being a summary, and it fails at saying anything to a lay man. you say i only namedrop. i dont. you do.

do better next time

>>20786475
everybody in this thread would rate that other guy better than you by several orders of magnitude. it's not even close. we don't need to be philosophers to know that.

now, suppose for a minute that, maybe, we're mistaken. that we've grown so disconnected from reality and our own understanding that we've confused mediocrity for greatness while ignoring your own brilliance.

then why do you hang around us? we'll only drag you down. what's your victory condition?

jokes aside, when are you gonna drop this retarded act and hit the books?

>>20786489
"Name Dropping" lol. It's very telling that it impresses you.

>>20786495
>everybody in this thread would rate that other guy better than you by several orders of magnitude. it's not even close
my goal isn't to be rated high by "you guys." i couldn't care less about that. my goal was to explain Hegel to a lay man who knows nothing, and just that.

keep being a hylic slave of falsities

>>20786511
you aren't doing a good job of it then. we're all laymen. but I felt that that other guy made me catch a glimpse of Hegel and how he's situated in Western philosophical thought. you, on the other hand, name dropped a lot of philosophers without really capturing the root of what Hegel is trying to do. and you ironically come off as pompous and condescending in the process. the other guy clearly knows his shit but felt no need to do it.

you fail even by your own standards, let alone our judgment of you. I hope you'll continue to be ignorant though. you're going to cringe very hard one day when you look back at your tripfag phase.

>>20786526
>that other guy
imagine samefagging

ultimately I believe that how a person criticizes tells a lot more about themselves than about the subject. i know what it says about you. but precisely because i am not on an ego trip, i'm just going to rest my case here.

i didn't even say that you were wrong. merely that you were supplementary to the holistic lay summary that I put forth. objective Truth exists and we better work together to approximate it, not fight each other. such is the doctrine and ethic of Pneumatism

>>20786534
lol if you're schizo enough to think that I'm samefagging as >>20783640 then idk. I'll take the compliment though. if you want me to take a picture showing the lack of (You)s, be my guest. it would be hilarious to see your retardation archived forever.
>I know what it says about you.
yeah, that I have high standards, hate charlatans, and see people like you as a repulsive aberration to the culture of an anonymous imageboard. you have no talent. you have no self-awareness. you have no shame. but you don't even have the decency to be fucking anonymous while doing it. but what's the use? you are so recognizably cliche that I could point you out instantly among a sea of other anons. please, fuck off and go read some books before you do this weird LARP. it'd save us all a lot of tedium.

>>20783484
Basically heretic atheism

>>20786569
i can see you want me to go on, so i will, but only because of that, not because of an ego trip whose goal is to reinforce myself and stomp everyone else.

in the 2 pneumaticist categorizations of humans, what your posting tells me, is that:
>(1) you're a hylic
>(2a) you have a weak sense of Self
>(2b) you're likely a Good person, likely, because your morality is still unresolved

good luck

>>20786625
If I'm a hylic, then you are apneumatic. Oh wait, that's your tripcode. Thank you for dragging yourself down to my level and telling everybody about it.

>>20786641
the vast majority of society are hylics, and as the Pneumatic creed tells us:
>>20785981
there's nothing wrong with that per se.
inaction is wrong. foolish action is wrong.

good luck.

>>20783484
Basically conservative theism

>>20783484
Unironically a compilation of twitter posts.

>>20786648
I think I'm just going to ignore you. you clearly get off on even negative attention. hopefully you'll get the hint and read a book.

>>20786659
funny. i was once called Dall-E/GPT-3 too.

>>20786667
i unironically "get off on" spreading the Truth and enlightening people. what do you get off on? who are you? what is you?

>>20785276
>>20783931
>>20783584
>>20785627

solid answers

>>20783931
This is not a good characterization of Hegel’s idealism. He doesn’t do away with matter, or say that the world happens solely in the mind. His position is that matter as well as mind are inflected with the absolute qua negativity, thus developing in a rationally graspable manner, with ideas. His is “absolute idealism.” You’re describing subjective idealism à la Berkeley, different still from the transcendental idealism of Kant and Fichte.

>>20783959
this is a poor and misleading analogy.

>>20785293
>He is trying to predict the future.
He explicitly says the future is not predictable. Owl of Minerva etc.

>>20785318
The Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis thing is a popular misunderstanding. While the Logic is triadic because of autism, the Phenomenology is not. There is also no synthesis or golden mean reached, only a shift in the site of the essential contradiction. And again, there’s no possible vision of the future, whatever will be will be necessary, but what will be shown to be necessary depends on our contingent acts. We have to choose our fate. see: >>20785361

>>20785499
>he just understands [nature] as extensions of our own consciousness.
No. Consciousness and Nature are both cut by the absolute. There is no priority of consciousness over nature.

>>20785627
>Absolute knowing, in the phenomenology, is the point where the philosophical subject understands that it's always already result and agent of this infinite process, and that there can be no final truth, only the inexhaustible horizon of the negative.
fantastic summary

>>20785768
this is an oversimplification of Kant who maintained (though admittedly wrongly and inconsistently) that the thing-in-itself is only a regulative principle.

>>20786702
>fantastic summary
Then what's the point of Hegel rebelling against the gauntlet of Kant's "bad infinities"?

>>20786702
your summary is flawed and circular and renders Hegelian philosophy a truism: "whatever will be, will be"

Hegel is deeper than that and in your bugman interpretation you remove a lot of his mysticism. the specifics of the Future are not possible to ascertain, but the general gist of the Future is.

>>20783484

>>20786728
einstein was one of the most based men alive, almost inhuman

>>20783484
Easy. The world is like fire. Constantly changing yet it keeps on being fire. It dances in itself. This seems like a contradiction but it is not. The world is not the same as always and it is not something else than before. It has always been becoming. It is becoming forever.

This is a metaphor for the thought of God. The world is the mind of God and he is dreaming our reality. As the dream progresses through time, man as the possessor of intellect realizes this truth through his own personal experience. Also through the collective experience of art/culture, politics/history and religion/faith.

This progression takes the form of the dialectic. The dialectic is the movement of the world and of counsiosness. It contains the existance of a contradiction and also the resolution of said contradiction. Just like the example with fire. There are no falsehoods in reality. Even lies are true. Mistakes are successes. Why? Beacuse the movement forward is predicated on the contradictions before it.

No one can refute this.

>>20786756
your premise is better, albeit the sloppy writing

>>20786715
the general gist of the future as hegel sees it is that it will be the result of contingent ruptures which are shown to be necessary only retroactively. meds, tripfag. now.

>>20787099
unironically read more Hegel

>>20786714
Guessing this is wrt
>there can be no final truth, only the inexhaustible horizon of the negative.
meaning an endless series. I share this quibble.
The final truth is the inexhaustible [immanent] horizon of the negative. Hegel’s problem with Kant’s notion of infinity is that it doesn’t inhere in the finite, it stands apart as merely a partial and regulative construct of reason. Hegel shows by recourse to calculus how infinity can be a property of the finite. Another analogy I like is how you can’t point to Pi on the number line, you’ll just fall more and more precisely down the chasm of its indefiniteness. Nonetheless Pi represents a sort of speculative (infinite) judgment about the relationship between a circle’s circumference and its diameter. It’s a truth that can’t definitely resolve itself, but nonetheless stands as truth.

>>20785108
>Hegel's big innovation was to propose that this "thing-in-itself" ALSO only exists in our mind
Hegel did think this but Fichte said it first, e.g. in the introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Fichte%27s_Science_of_Knowledge

Reinhold and Schelling also said it even earlier, the main problem being that Kant left unresolved dualisms in his system (which is only a problem if you're presupposing monism from the get-go, which Kant the humble Enlightener wasn't, but Fichte and Schelling and Hegel the Spinozist Sturm-und-Drang literature readers were).

They are all radicalising Kant's program for an anthropology and a "history of reason" in ways Kant hadn't intended, and
fusing it with Herder's Ideas for a Philosophy of Human History, which Kant hated even though he and Herder were formerly friends.

All this creates the famous ambiguity of: Okay, so "Subject" (thing in here) knows "Object" (thing out there) by being ultimately identical with it, fine. But WHO is the subject? Is it me, or every individual subject? Or is it some "super-subject," Spirit, thus making me just a subset or appendage, a sub-subject of the super-subject? This ambiguity is never resolved, and tends toward what is called Averroism: the tendency to reduce all individual human beings (minds in this case) to just momentary instantiations of the universal Human Being (Mind in this case).

A lot of learning to read and benefit from German idealism is figuring out where these contradictions, ambiguities, and fault lines are, and understanding that you often will not get systematic or satisfying answers to them. It's usually more the possibilities and questions they raise by trying to explain, than the answers themselves, that are valuable. I really can't stress this enough: NOBODY has ever understood Hegel completely, and very few would claim that he is self-consistent, or that the fundamental ambiguities in his basic concepts can be completely cleared up. But read the first 100 pages or so of Taylor's book Hegel and he will probably convince you of why Hegel is important nevertheless.

It's like how Plato simply does not explain the status of material, apparent, temporal reality in his "system." Or how the exact nature of his relationship between the One and the Dyad is ambiguous and we have to reconstruct it speculatively. That's just how philosophy is, it's not an Ikea cabinet. Or maybe it is an Ikea cabinet since there's always too much shit you don't need and a few things missing that you do need.

But you are correct, just adding extra details like a footnote here in case anyone is interested.

>>20787205
>Hegel shows by recourse to calculus how infinity can be a property of the finite.
refuted by Guenon's (pbuh) book on calculus

>>20787205
>meaning an endless series.
false infinity. the universe's timeline isn't infinite, it will end with the Heat Death

>>20787229
what if another big bang happens tho, or the same one happens in eternal recurrence

>>20787235
It won't. Are you implying Hegel's philosophy rests on the Big Bang being part of a cycle? I disagree. Hence my refinement of Hegel.

But oh well, that is mine to do. You stay at the peak of intellectuality from 200 years ago.

>>20786702
>this is an oversimplification of Kant who maintained (though admittedly wrongly and inconsistently) that the thing-in-itself is only a regulative principle.
The thing in itself is noumenal in the sense that it can only be thought (nous) and not intuited or understood (i.e. brought under conceptual or imaginative apprehension, in other words: SEEN mentally, in any meaningful way). But it isn't really regulative, regulative ideas are the ideas of reason that guide our mental activity but are also liable to generate paradoxes.

For example the concept of an ordered totality of the world, the idea that the world is a rational whole and that we progressively gain knowledge of it, so that all the knowledge we gain should "fit" into the totality, obviously cannot itself be justified from the outset of our inquiries, because such knowledge OF THE WHOLE would necessarily depend on knowledge of the whole - of knowledge of the totality of the world and its essential structure. We clearly don't have such knowledge, or else we wouldn't be interested in making particular empirical inquiries in the first place (we'd already know everything), and yet we begin with a presupposition that all our particular empirical inquiries are tending toward such a rational totality of knowledge, what is sometimes called the unity of thinking and being. This is what Kant means by regulative, because it is guiding or "giving a rule to" empirical inquiries that it is not ITSELF empirically justified - again this would be circular and paradoxical, we would require foreknowledge of the thing we are seeking knowledge into.

The thing in itself is definitely "there" for Kant. It's the thing we engage with and enquire into in experience and in science, but I don't know if Kant strictly speaking calls it regulative. I guess it's notionally analogous, but I am just saying technically I don't know if he classifies it that way.

>>20786702
>fantastic summary
not layman terms though. He failed the task OP set out.

>>20787289
>He failed the task OP set out.
Few people understood it and some even tried attacking me* for it.

*The fools ended up fleeing in horror because of this gross error.

>>20787303
you changed your tripfag name after I roasted you as an "apneumatic" kek. man you're a sensitive little fucker. very pathetic.

>>20787324
not because of that. the fact that you continue living a delusion of agency is just further proof that you're a hylic

but in my unbound love for humanity, know that i do not judge you

>>20787208
So what ends up happening to German idealism and Hegelianism? Does it simply die out? Are the Hegelians replaced by Neokantians and phenomenologists? Do the Neokantians adequately address the Hegelians, or do they reach an impasse? Does Husserl and Heidegger successfully steal the torch from the Hegelians? Why did Hegelianism revive itself in Italy? Who the hell are the Right Hegelians (besides Gentile)?

It feels difficult to believe that there's more to philosophy after Kant and Hegel with the exception of Nietzsche and Heidegger. The former basically gave up on philosophy and the latter formulated a last ditch assault on the most abstract of philosophical foundations to liberate us from it all.

>>20787346
nah I was right on the money lol. don't worry, I'll remember to call you by your real name, apneumatic, just like they say in the scriptures. keep seething pseud

>>20787352
>It feels difficult to believe that there's more to philosophy after Kant and Hegel
Watch me.

>>20787244
idk anything about hegel but what you replied to said they disagreed with the endless series. fuckin tripfag cant even read a post but claims to read hegel. color me shocked.
>It won’t.
it will.

>>20787374
>cant even read a post but claims to read hegel.
why do you place an equivalence between shitposts and Hegel? there's no incoherence on my part.

be upfront or get scattered

>>20787256
You’re totally right, rather than regulative principle, I should have said instead it has a problematic status as a theoretical concept.

>>20786756
This so far is the best one. Good job anon.

>>20783726
>confusing attributes for modes
dropped

>>20787352
It is basically the foundation of all modern philosophy, everything is downstream of Kant's challenges to epistemology and his immediate successors' attempts to nuance and break out of those challenges.

More specifically, Hegel falls from grace in the '30s, there's a brief attempt at a Schelling revival as he comes out of seclusion and puts forth his new philosophy of "positivity," this doesn't really catch on (see Engels and Kierkegaard mocking it), and there's a general crisis and lapse of faith in philosophy as a result of all the build-up of the previous decades leading to nothing. Lots of people begin turning back to philosophies forbidden by Kantianism, like vulgar materialism (of which Marxism is a variant, see also Mill's vulgar materialist empiricism which was very influential and a classic "problem text" for neo-Kantians to confront), or they focus on more doable post-Kantian post-Herderian specialities like historicism).

The shock of the collapse of the great philosophical era and its disappointing culmination in Hegelianism, which leaves such a bad taste in most people's mouths that they even condemn Kant by association, causes a sort of lull. Some people start to develop a taste for speculative philosophy again, but explicitly de-Hegelized and somewhat eclectic (Trendelenburg). People start returning to Kant (the "back to Kant" movement), which then becomes neo-Kantianism, which fuses with historicism to become Kantianized/epistemological historicism (Dilthey, Rickert, Windelband, Lask, etc.).

The beginnings of "existentialism" occur mid-century here too - even though Schopenhauer was writing in the first half of the 19th century, nobody was really in the mood for philosophy after the Hegel years so he was only "discovered" in around the '50s and '60s, as part of the great revival and new interest in speculative philosophy. Again contra the Hegelian period, interest in the irrational (like Schopenhauer's Will) is more important, and this begins to influence people like Nietzsche and Wagner, and a proto-existentialist or proto-phenomenological (using these very loosely here) way of doing philosophy in which one doesn't aim for systematic rigour or pantheistic all-encompassingness but for subject-centric, Lebensphilosophie type stuff.

The French are eclectic and take a while to catch up but German philosophy gradually seeps into their thinking too. Heidegger said when the French begin to think philosophically, they think in German, and it's basically because during this era any time you wanted speculative philosophy or epistemology of science or anything like that, the first answer was "you want to read the Germans then."

>>20787352
You should also remember, all these people are human. Like you and I, they don't generally go reread all of the history of philosophy before allowing themselves to do philosophy. Nobody is reading Hegel for a loooong time after his fall, except maybe skimming it a bit to confirm their presuppositions. Nietzsche barely read any Kant. Most movements simply pave over the bones of the dead, they don't sift through them and reconstruct in a "fair" way what the dead were saying. Neo-Kantianism is heavily motivated by the desire for a fresh start. They don't want to read Hegel, Hegel stinks to them like scholasticism stank to the Cartesians. And the Cartesian and Leibnizian "systems" stank to the post-Bayle Enlightenment philosophes, who loudly proclaimed against "systems." That's just the way of things in philosophy usually.

Similarly in Britain, where "British Idealism," usually simplistically called Hegelianism but actually much more interesting and sadly neglected today, is succeeded by logical positivism in Russell's generation, it becomes extremely fashionable to hate on anything speculative and to call Kant a retard without ever reading him etc. This tradition continues to this day, and only began to break up in the late decades of the 20th century.

>Does Husserl and Heidegger successfully steal the torch from the Hegelians?
They are a kind of coalescence of neo-Kantian epistemology, historicism, Lebensphilosophie, and in Husserl's case the desire to overcome the post-Hegelian ennui of subjectivism and nihilism with a new well-grounded objectivity. The relation to Hegelianism is thus there, but it's not a direct or conscious one. I don't think Heidegger read much Hegel, I know Husserl didn't, in fact Husserl was more of a mathematician and more in neo-realist, anti-psychologist, anti-Mill, anti-materialist/reductivist camp and only read what we now consider classics of contemporary philosophy as his career progressed. Heidegger's student Gadamer really confronted Hegel much later, but Hegel only has a serious revival after people like Lukacs and Marcuse (also under Heidegger's influence) begin to rehabilitate him as a serious and historically important thinker, and then the major Hegel revival really comes in the '60s and '70s with Taylor etc. (plus some shitty "non-metaphysical Hegelianism" tendencies in Anglo-analytic philosophy that are still around).

Phenomenology itself is an interesting study in how philosophy doesn't develop orthogonally, since almost all of Husserl's disciples abandoned his desire for a new objectivity and scientificity and just turned it into Lebensphilosophie.

>>20787352
>Why did Hegelianism revive itself in Italy?
Same as with the French, people in "peripheral" countries send their best students to study at the state of the art modern universities in Germany, and they are exposed to all these currents there. German philosophy seeps into those countries in weird ways, for example while Marx and Engels were shitting all over young Hegelianism in Germany, Russia was absorbing a young-Hegelianized-Marxism via liberal expats like Herzen reading the EARLY Engels, which then trickled down in Russia through Plekhanov and influenced Lenin and co. In Italy it's more through Croce, and I think through Labriola, that you get a peculiar attenuated Marxism combined with more interest in its Hegelian aspects than was then fashionable across the border (where Hegel was still "the guy overcome by Marx"); but then ironically Lukacs and Lenin re-Hegelized Marxism a few years later.

>Who the hell are the Right Hegelians (besides Gentile)?
Right Hegelians were originally those who, as moderates and especially conservatives in Prussia, interpreted Hegel to be justifying the current Prussian state rather than imposing a constitutional-democratic-liberal form on it. Left Hegelians interpreted and critiqued Hegel as the harbinger of self-catalysing enlightenment and liberalisation, right Hegelians interpreted Hegel with much heavier emphasis on his justification of the state and monarchy. Left Hegelians generally interpreted Hegel as betraying his own method, as being correct in method but a sell-out in the execution once he got that cushy Berlin chair of philosophy, and right Hegelians interpreted it the other way around. Thus when Hegel justifies feudal holdover institutions of the Prussian state in the Philosophy of Right, left Hegelians saw it as casuistry and right Hegelians saw it as correct. Hegel's famous dictum "the actual is rational, the rational is actual" can infamously be interpreted both ways: as giving primacy to the rational (to tell the actual how to behave) or to the actual (i.e. that the currently existing state of affairs is by definition rational). Left and Right Hegelians obviously adopted the former and latter interpretations respectively.

>>20787352
Basically, left Hegelianism was what you did when you were a pro-liberalisation Berliner in the '30s and '40s, like Marx and his teachers and colleagues. Marx breaks out of left Hegelianism by calling the whole Hegelian enterprise a self-involved pile of shit, and saying that the "Ideal" has no existence outside of individual men's minds, and individual men's minds simply reflect their social and economic situations, so there is no sense in talking about the "necessary movements of the ideal." Marx has a very funny bit in The Holy Family about how Hegelianism is basically like trying to create a philosophy of fruits, and saying that Oranges and Apples are necessary dialectical moments in the self-development of the Seed, and that the apparent opposition is reconciled in the Banana (or something like that). His point is, you can do anything you want by starting from a hypostatisation of arbitrary concepts and then making up arbitrary games of how they "relate."

Of neo-Hegelianism in Italy I only really know Croce and Gentile. From what I can tell Gentile is basically going back to the Hegelian concept of the State as a necessary entity existing beyond civil society. This is counter to the post-Hegelian, especially Marxist and French socialist and anarchist tendency to try to identify the state simply with the collective interests of civil society, not as a "thing" in its own right.

>The former basically gave up on philosophy and the latter formulated a last ditch assault on the most abstract of philosophical foundations to liberate us from it all.
They're both basically just Kantians, in my view, even if heavily mediated. They still claim no knowledge of the thing in itself. Compare Nietzsche's aestheticising approach to the Will to Power to Schopenhauer's very explicitly metaphysical and lengthy speculations on the emanation of the world from Will, which he thought were confirmed quite explicitly by scientific developments. Schopenhauer has far more in common cosmologically with Schelling and Herder than with Nietzsche, let alone Heidegger, who won't even permit themselves to speculate about the thing in itself.

>>20787352
Everything else is vulgar materialism of one form or another. E.g. Freud: "the world undoubtedly exists as a physical material secular thing, we are animals, we have drives, our drives cause our thoughts" - notice how he presupposes the "undoubted" materialist position as a premise, not as a result of his inquiries. That's standard. Phenomenology, French poststructuralism, everything just stays within the bounds of the subject or else it reduces the subject a priori (as an unjustified premise) to "obvious" materialism/physicalism. Wittgenstein just brackets it out, his one remark on it somewhere is "that stuff is for science to figure out," even though this creates a paradox.

In my opinion we're still back at Kant, and the nice thing about Kant is that he doesn't do any of this sleight of hand or presupposing. He just fairly and explicitly says, we don't know, and so far as I can tell, we can't know. All I can tell you is how we seem to operate, immanently.

The one thinker who really seemed to get this as a problem and to try to go beyond it was Husserl. He wanted to get back to the Kantian starting position, and then begin founding positive knowledge painstakingly, a new and modern version of both the Cartesian and Greek philosophical traditions. But like I said, all his students swerved from exactly this intent. And it's not hard to see why, it is itself built on presuppositions that can be easily undermined from a Heideggerian, Nietzschean perspective (namely, the metaphysics of presence). But all that does is get us back again to, at worst, nihilistic subjectivism, and at best, Kantian "I dunno what to do, I'm just describing experience immanently"-ism, which is just scepticism.

There seems to be no way out of scepticism without intellectual intuition. But the latter would require a transformation in human consciousness, it would basically be the admission that mysticism or esoteric knowledge are systematically, scientifically real. Only certain neoplatonists and for obvious reasons certain religious philosophers like transcendental thomists (Lonergan) get close to this, or outright occultists like Steiner's esoteric science. Short of that I think we've simply reached the same nadir as the ancient world reached after its philosophical golden age, namely, lukewarm Academic scepticism. Cicero is a good representative of the modern age, just read On the Nature of the Gods for example, same aporia, same basically Kantian sentiment of "I'm not gonna believe in mystical shit unless I see it for myself and I haven't seen it so I guess I'll just go to work tomorrow."

>>20787543
>like vulgar materialism (of which Marxism is a variant, see also Mill's vulgar materialist empiricism which was very influential and a classic "problem text" for neo-Kantians to confront)
But Marx and many Marxists claim that dialectical materialism is separate from vulgar materialism, citing Marx's writings on Theses on Feuerbach (IIRC) as the example. What's going on here? I knew that Gentile spoke of Marx's "hidden idealism", which was a problem that was even noted by Lenin as worthy of further inquiry during his exile years.

>>20783484
Should i read hegel

>>20787589
Vulgar materialism in that context means bog standard metaphysical materialism, classical atomism for example, like "everything is atoms, therefore you are an atom-man." The point being to stress that Marx is not starting from any such metaphysical (i.e. abstract, ideal) "theory" and proceeding through an ideal determination of society (which is exactly what he critiqued Hegelians for doing), rather he is starting from a "materialist" premise (men are material beings with material interests) and proceeding to a determination of the ideal, which "dialectically" emerges from the material conditions of human life and intercourse. I'm using vulgar materialism more freely because frankly, the Marxist position is still vulgar, in that it simply presupposes materialism. Marx considered himself a disciple of the French materialist schools of the 19th century, as mediated through the primitive communists like Babeuf. He didn't feel the need to justify this "overthrow of idealism," he felt it was self-evidently reasonable, just as he felt atheism was self-evidently reasonable. It's a gap in the epistemology of historical materialism, of which "dialectical materialism" is the weird quasi-Engelsian Russian development mentioned above - Marx himself did not worship "dialectics," the Russians re-Hegelised Marx in weird ways and then Stalin turned it all into a state cult.

What Marx gained from Feuerbach and claimed he gained from Feuerbach was completely prosaic: Man generates abstractions, not the other way around. Do not try to derive man from God, or Being, or the Idea, or Spirit; derive these things from man. Somewhere in The German Ideology (I think, might be wrong), he says that Feuerbach is the delayed German realisation of what the French materialists/primitive communists already figured out more prosaically, without needing to break out of idealism like the Germans did.

Honestly Marx's Hegelianism and his deeply personal involvement in those circles has been the single biggest burden on Marxism, since only specialists can pick it apart and realise a lot of it is just not that interesting, it is of merely biographical interest. Marx DOES maintain "Hegelian thinking" in his basic outlook but it's incredibly ironic how people try to deduce the "dialectical" progression of Marx's thinking his way out of German idealism as if it's this intricate thing - that kind of thinking was exactly what Marx put so much effort into making fun of. Marx simply said "nah this shit is stupid."

But this, as I said, led him into a "vulgar" materialism in the sense that he didn't really resolve any of the Kantian paradoxes - which forbid "dogmatic" materialism as much as they forbid dogmatic idealism. He simply re-asserted a basically materialist position.

In his eyes the validity of the position was to be proved by the predictions generated by it, empirical predictions about impending crises and revolutions, the concentration of wealth etc.

>>20787589
About the hidden idealism, I don't know what it refers to exactly but it's certainly true that Marx had a metaphysical worldview (in the same way that a modern secular reddit scientism guy does, even if he calls it "non-metaphysical" or says "I just believe what's scientifically proved").

But there is definitely a Hegelian residue in Marx's thinking, in his notions of alienation and reification.

Lenin is a very interesting case of Marxist heterodoxy possibly giving Marx a reacharound and becoming more Marxist than Marx or something, I can't really comment on it. I recommend reading Lukacs if you want to read an attempt to save Marxism by Leninistically re-Blanqui-ifying it, as Lukacs called it himself, "trying to out-Hegel Hegel."

>>20787555
>I don't think Heidegger read much Hegel
he did late in his career, at first highly critically, then more and more seeing Hegel as a stumbling block

>>20787559
>Right Hegelians were originally those who, as moderates and especially conservatives in Prussia, interpreted Hegel to be justifying the current Prussian state rather than imposing a constitutional-democratic-liberal form on it.
And now I'm reminded of Kant who seemed to endorse both liberal democratic tendencies (e.g. freedom of speech) and the autocratic Prussian state (e.g. that one must OBEY) in his political writings. In other words, taking both sides.

I can't help but notice that the kneejerk reaction against old traditions just leads to retreading much of the same philosophical waters without learning any of the mistakes. Maybe Scholasticism was right, in that we ought to have read the works, read the commentaries, THEN make original contributions. Or even Plato, where we ought to study mathematics and gymnastics for decades before we're old enough to handle dialectic.

Thank you anon for such a wonderful and thorough exposition of the history of philosophy. I hope to have at least a fraction of your grasp on it one day.

>>20787565
>Will to Power
you mean conatus, anon?

>>20787577
>In my opinion we're still back at Kant, and the nice thing about Kant is that he doesn't do any of this sleight of hand or presupposing. He just fairly and explicitly says, we don't know, and so far as I can tell, we can't know. All I can tell you is how we seem to operate, immanently.
Have you read Peirce? AFAIK, Peirce challenges Kant and Hegel on the basis of their categories, which he derides as insufficiently rigorous due to the lack of modern logic, and then reconstitutes them whole. His system of firstness, secondness, and thirdness (which informs his semiotics, but is otherwise much more fundamental than that) does a great job of uniting the two, but unfortunately without solving Kant's negative infinities. If Peirce had the time to sit down and reconstitute his life's work into a treatise, I think he could have made for a much more compelling introduction to philosophy than a laborious slog through Kant, Hegel, et al.

>>20787663
if you are unsure then no. most will come to hegel only once they are deep enough in a certain topic to know that they need to read him.

>>20787577
>And it's not hard to see why, it is itself built on presuppositions that can be easily undermined from a Heideggerian, Nietzschean perspective (namely, the metaphysics of presence)
Could you expand further on what you mean by this? I'm a bit familiar with Being and Time, but I have a hard time conceptualizing what is meant by the "metaphysics of presence", unless we're referring to the meta-category of Being that reigns over all interpretations of metaphysics, the one that Aristotle made "substantial" until it was reified, crystallized, and then largely forgotten about. I'm also bewildered by the connection to Nietzsche.
>There seems to be no way out of scepticism without intellectual intuition. But the latter would require a transformation in human consciousness, it would basically be the admission that mysticism or esoteric knowledge are systematically, scientifically real.
I think that many philosophers end up going down this path. Heidegger is a great example of this.
>Cicero is a good representative of the modern age, just read On the Nature of the Gods for example, same aporia, same basically Kantian sentiment of "I'm not gonna believe in mystical shit unless I see it for myself and I haven't seen it so I guess I'll just go to work tomorrow."
Great connection. How the hell do you know all of this?

>>20783519
The Greeks were refuted.

>an actually good thread
yeah i'm think /lit/ is back

>>20786756
>t. Michael Kirkbride

I haven't read a word of Hegel, I admit it, and my problem with him from what I gather in threads like these are that it's just too civil, to educated. Kant's project for the history of reason is the same deal. What is Kant or Hegel to the uneducated masses? or to the extreme individualists? what is Hegel to the criminal? They are too grandiose and utopian.

>>20788149
What is calculus to the uneducated masses? Infinitesimals? Electrons? Differential equations? Too grandiose and utopian.

>tfw you will never know the dispassionate calm of a knowledge dedicated to thought alone.

>>20787666
based post. if you're a philosopher, you're redpilled. if you're merely a historian of philosophy, still respect

>>20787680
>Lukacs
>"trying to out-Hegel Hegel."
you're based my man. the final redpill is a capitalist accelerationist Lukacs.

good luck and Peace Be Upon You

>>20788339
he's what you think you were, what you wish you were, but will never attain because you spend way too much time shitposting and not enough time reading. you're apneumatic

>>20787577
I want to reach out to you. We could work together. I have a serious proposition and if you're a true intellectual I could even pay.

Lancelot#9582

>>20788352
I never wished to be a historian of philosophy. You seem obsessed. But I respect a man of his trade when I see one.

I think you're not Good, after all. You're guided by your sins and there seems to be little Good inside you. Unironically read Plato (PBUH), especially the early dialogues, and repent.

>>20788149
I solve this unironically.

>>20783535
If by "BTFO'd Hegel" you mean "Ended up more or less agreeing with him." By Peirce's own admission, too.

>>20783484
>Explain Hegel's philosophy to a layman
Shortest possible way?

Semi-final redpill.

>>20788401
"Peirce's own admission" usually means that he found elements he liked in other philosophers because he liked to believe that he was just bringing out the best out of every philosopher. He also thought he was a Schellingian of some stripe, a Kantian, a Spinozian, a Lockeian, a Berkeleyan, etc. Which, IMO, I think is an attempt to bolster his own line of thinking as part of a greater tradition so he would be taken more seriously.

But in Peirce's 1903 Harvard lectures, which were basically the culmination of his thoughts on metaphysics, epistemology, and phaneroscopy, Peirce distances himself from everybody else as lacking at least *some* account of his three essential categories. On Hegel, Peirce argued that Hegel's system lacked enough emphasis on "firstness" and "secondness", probably due to Hegel's emphasis on determinate negation at the cost of chance, possibility, "suchness", and its contribution to thinking. Peirce thought Hegel thought that "thirdness" was there really was to it, completely lacking in "firstness" and thus also lacking a robust account of "secondness", i.e. negation.

Remember, Peirce derived his categories from rigorously examining Hegel and especially Kant (whom he often read with his Harvard mathematician father), seeing the logic used in deriving the categories of the two Germans as "not up to par" (coming from a titan of modern logic like Peirce, that's a serious claim), and thus proceeded to restructure them accordingly. It's a brilliant insight, I think, that is worth taking seriously, especially after Peirce's reduction thesis proved the necessity of triadic relations.

>>20788444
>"Peirce's own admission" usually means that he found elements he liked in other philosophers because he liked to believe that he was just bringing out the best out of every philosopher.
that's me, but Peirce sounds good. I will check him out. thanks for the rec.

>>20788471
He will filter you.

>>20788534
why so much fear bro? why use got no chill mane?

>>20788542
I don't want Peirce to be associated with pseuds before he gets his chance to shine.

>>20788554
too late

>>20788444
Look Peircefag I get that you think you're the only one who has read the lectures but his sole criticism of Hegel was, as you said, lacking enough description of first and second categories of experience. He admits in those same lectures to have been against Hegel and come around, even calling himself a sort of Hegelian. That is not a refutation, I don't care about your autistic hairsplitting. Go sperg about your chosen patron autist somewhere else.

>>20788554
the irony of you is that you are the pseud. you are the hylic. your rebellion is false and already satiated, by the Capital.

keep being a good goy. keep being "antisemitic" goy, thinking it makes you liberated

>>20788854
>Go sperg about your chosen patron autist somewhere else.
don't deny the hylic his imperative

>>20788854
Bravo. You've managed to completely ignore everything I said somehow. Why even bother replying, especially pretending as if you understand by saying things like
>lacking enough description of first and second categories of experience. (actually, it's worse than lacking description, Hegel doesn't account for firstness whatsoever)
only to say that this is hairsplitting. This is how I know you're not acting in good faith. You're just stringing random phrases together and hoping that they make sense.

No, these are MAJOR weaknesses in their philosophical projects, especially if you consider the necessity of triadic relations as demonstrated by the proof of the Peircian reduction thesis. If you understood what firstness and secondness were, you wouldn't think of it as hairsplitting. It means the inability to account for chance and possibility, the inability to properly understand relation, the inability to account for quality and creativity, etc. Imagine Hegel but where the processes of negation and sublation are critically flawed beyond repair. Yeah, that's what is at stake.

Just because Peirce liked to be charitable where philosophers got things right and link himself to the philosophical tradition doesn't mean that he didn't think there were substantial differences between himself and them. If you're going to try to dunk on a philosopher, you should at least have tried to have read them and understood where they were coming from instead of posting a lazy zinger.
>>20788870
I'm not anti-Semitic. I do not like tripfags. You're a weirdo.

>>20788907
you're autistic whatever you are.

autism is a mental illness. look up the Pneumatic creed, paragraph 3. you are doomed to be a hylic slave if you're deeply autistic.

>>20788941
You spend your entire day shitposting about hylics and Capital. You have no business attacking my character, let alone calling me autistic.

>>20788907
This is indeed hairsplitting. "Hegel deals with firstness and secondness but believes they only exist to be aufgehoben" is not a major difference, he didn't see it as such, and your attempt to expostulate otherwise is pedantic whining. The thing is I quite like Peirce, and I hate the way you've been shitting up the board with your gay fucking one-upmanship in the usual style of midwite faggots of
>consuming as much text as possible around one fucking guy so no one can beat you at being the "expert"
>treating every tangential premise or idea as gospel truth and dogma even when the philosopher didn't see it that way
If you want to be like this, go join a real religion. Playing the sermonizing dork is bad enough to have to watch when it's with someone I don't care about. Intelligent people don't do this.

>>20788941
>autism is a mental illness
Sounds like what a hylic would say.

According to antisemitic frog mythology "completing the system" of German idealism represents the final story of the underlying relationship between the mind and the material that also gives the individual mind more power to enact change. Atlantis like reality is an ouroboros, a snake that eats its tail like the worm of midgard that keeps reality together. It "physically" exists but in the culture it's only an idea. When we complete the cycle and repopulate Atlantis it will represent the fact that humanity has reached a new way of being that reflects the oldest way of being, in the first temple. Trump is a crucial piece to the puzzle obviously.
https://youtu.be/iOk6HB609po

>>20788978
>yeah I'm just going to admit that Peirce claimed that Hegel denied two of the three categories and pretend that this is no big deal
You keep posturing
>"Hegel deals with firstness and secondness but believes they only exist to be aufgehoben"
That is incoherent. You can't overcome a fundamental category of logic. It is built into what we understand as the phenomena. That was the whole novelty of Peirce, numpty, to take Kant's categories and Hegel's categories and straighten them out to fully understand understanding. In a way, Peirce is not original, since he's standing on the shoulders of Kant and Hegel. But his insights lead to clarity of all kinds of phenomenological experience, such as the nature of abductive reasoning and its connection to creativity. I know what you just did. You Googled Hegel firstness and secondness and tried to plagiarize the first result you found while butchering the vocabulary. You're not fooling anybody.
>The thing is I quite like Peirce
If you liked Peirce then you'd understand his M.O. And the Cenopythagorean categories are his M.O. If you only care for his semiotics, then you don't understand HOW and WHY he structured his semiotics the way that he does. But honestly? I don't think you like Peirce at all. I think you're just trying to get a rise out of me because you're bored. And I'll tell you this right now, unless you give a substantial rebuttal, which I'm fully open to, I'm just going to dismiss your next wave of posturing insults. So don't bother writing unless you have something to say.

>>20788996
mental illness is a form of irrationality. you can never absorb the One through irrationality, merely approach it yes, maybe, but never fully absorb

>>20789021
I think you're committing the cardinal sin of Pride. Read Plato (PBUH) especially his early dialogues, and repent

>>20789021
Look, do me a favor, pull up that website on which you read the lectures, and ctrl + f "aufgehoben," as you clearly have forgotten the word that Peirce himself used. But the thing is, this point is really ancillary to the main point I'm making, which is that you're using Peirce as a kind of bludgeon to score points in a narcissitic game that only you have interest in playing. Everyone can see it. You're no different form Guenonfag or Wagnerfag, where you worship one fucking guy (to keep things simple and, of course, definitive), and then proceed to try and subtly pick fights in an arena where you feel you can't lose. It's pathetic. Please desist in your faggotry. The only people who do this are sad sacks and you can list as many of the qualities of Peirce's philosophy as you like and the sack only gets sadder

>>20789053
Fair enough, I forgot how they were used. But that's because I was focused on Peirce's own explanation of why they were incoherent. If you kept scrolling down the page:
>But they do not. Hegel is possessed with the idea that the Absolute is One. Three absolutes he would regard as a ludicrous contradiction in adjecto Consequently, he wishes to make out that the three categories have not their several independent and irrefutable standings in thought. Firstness and Secondness must somehow be aufgehoben. But it is not true. They are in no way refuted nor refutable.
>Thirdness it is true involves Secondness and Firstness, in a sense. That is to say, if you have the idea of Thirdness you must have had the ideas of Secondness and Firstness to build upon. But what is required for the idea of a genuine Thirdness is an independent solid Secondness and not a Secondness that is a mere corollary of an unfounded and inconceivable Thirdness; and a similar remark may be made in reference to Firstness.
You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about if you think these are "hairsplitting" distinctions. Again, this means Hegel is incapable of having an account of chance, negation, etc. that is coherent. I

Your insipid attempt at psychoanalysis says more about your own cynicism than it applies to me. I don't hold Peirce to be some kind of saint, prophet, etc., you can look at his miserable personal life for all the evidence you need there. I just think he's a brilliant, yet overlooked guy, and I'll talk about him with anybody who asks. Is there anything wrong with that?

And who the hell was even picking a fight here? If you recall the posts
>>20788401
>>20788444
>>20788854
I don't see anybody breaking decorum until you got angry that I proved that Peirce had a serious bone to pick with Hegel, that it wasn't just "hairsplitting." You haven't been able to come up with a substantial response that deals with the crux of the issues. So here you are just attacking me personally because you have nothing left. To borrow your own words
>Everybody can see it.

By the way, I constantly "shill" for other philosophers, but you don't recognize me then. You only recognize me here because few people talk about Peirce on this board outside of his semiotics. So, you don't really know much about me. Stop pretending like you do.

>>20789085
>who the hell was even picking a fight here?
>posts his fifth non sequitur today in a thread about a different philosopher to say that he BTFO him
You notice how only I was dumb enough to respond? Because everybody knows what you're doing.

>>20787781
What isn't refuted is that the greeks were fags, much like you.

>>20789110
>>20789107
you're extremely based and I wish you worked with me on the quest to Truth. sad that you probably won't.

>>20789107
Come on dude, that was shitposting. Most people are dumb enough not to get offended by a shitpost. Don't tell me you were personally offended by a low effort shitpost on 4chan.

>>20789127
aren't dumb enough to get offended*

>>20789127
No? Hence a one line response to a shitpost. But of course that earned me a small paragraph of your book report where you sprinkle in all the irrelevant facts you've memorized along with your gushing panache
>TITAN of MODERN LOGIC what a SERIOUS CLAIM
Indeed. I even agree with you in that sentiment. But arriving at what is essentially a Hegelian structure independently of Hegel is not a refutation. The only personal stake I have in this is watching you embarrass yourself shouting into the void about one of my favorite philosophers. This isn't the only post you've made (and remember it's pronounced PUUURRRSSSEEE!!!!)

>>20783484
the autobiography of the Geist

>>20789127
>>20789159
As a neutral observer to this competition I decree you both have large philosophy e-penises.

>>20789159
>But of course that earned me a small paragraph
Oh no, a small paragraph, what will you EVER do? I hope you don't start cutting yourself, anon.
>The only personal stake I have in this is watching you embarrass yourself shouting into the void about one of my favorite philosophers.
You have no personal stake in my own embarrassment lol. Don't be such a faggot. Besides, if you liked Peirce so much, then you'd understand that removing Peirce's categories from him is like removing the theory of the forms from Plato or rhizomes from Deleuze. It just doesn't work.
>This isn't the only post you've made
And it won't be the last. Well, I'd actually stop posting about Peirce if somebody like you could prove that he isn't as novel as I think he is. But you just keep refusing to engage with the argument and instead prefer to bluster and seethe.

Maybe it's time for another Peirce general.

>>20787205
>Hegel shows by recourse to calculus how infinity can be a property of the finite
Calculus shows nothing of the sort, it merely uses infinity as an abstraction in order to make approximate calculations, ie calculus is more in tune with Kant's conception of infinity (which Kant correctly renamed "indefinite") as a regulatory principle than Hegel's. Read pic related if you want a better and non-retarded understanding of calculus.
>Another analogy I like is how you can’t point to Pi on the number line, you’ll just fall more and more precisely down the chasm of its indefiniteness
That has nothing to do with the indefiniteness of a circle, it is essentially just the fact that you cannot represent circularity in a Cartesian or Euclidean geometric system. Actually it applies to all discrete geometric systems, because circularity by definition cannot be discrete qua circular. But non-discreteness does not imply indefiniteness, unless you are an autist who cannot distinguish between particular mathematical representations and reality. In other words Hegel's error stems in his fetishism of concepts or Begriffe, "the rational."

>>20789400
>Read Guenon
:/

>>20789412
Reading can be hard but I believe you have the power to accomplish it.

>>20789400
>cant into cantor

>>20789580
Cantor was preemptively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

>>20789580
This is a joke, but he is not really relevant. If we even assume he was making metaphysical claims rather than just mathematical proofs within a given system of thought, it makes zero sense to assert (by tautologically defining X as a subset of Y, where Y is infinite) that both X and Y actually exist as separately comparable entities. Infinity by definition is not measurable, and therefore there can only be smaller or greater infinities logically, by using the above tautology, not in actuality. It's fine as far as mathematics and set theory goes, because it doesn't violate any logical rules. The problem is in reality attributing a predicate to two different things (which are only logically separated) which are only really one. For example if we conceived numbers as real things for whatever reason, there would be no justification for separating out the natural numbers and asserting they are their own infinity, in fact they are not even infinite in the metaphysical sense anyway, they are only indefinite. This is one other huge issue that could be dealt with at length, the confusion of infinite with indefinite which is the prevalent terminological confusion in mathematics (ultimately it is not like mathematicians really care, though).

>>20787935
Huh? I do not know who that is.

>>20789035
>neurotypical calls autists irrational
The pot calling the kettle black.

>>20784156
History serves neither the man nor the dialectic. Get ready to be smothered by the stupid exploits of neo-zoomers, desperately fidgeting against their tedium.

bump

>>20786460
There's a few sayings out there that go like this: "The desire is about the journey. What you seek is seeking you." etc. With the premise that you don't actually attain what you desire. But the strange thing is that, on a superficial and mechanical level, you DO achieve the things that you desire. If you desire to walk to the store, that's something you CAN do. We accomplish the things that we desire all the time.

So perhaps the problem of desire is that we rarely get to the root of the problem, the desire to feel "complete", not lacking in anything, yet still effusive enough to still do things. Is that a journey that can be finished with the utmost focus?

bump

>>20783484
the movement in reality is the same as the movement of ideas that happens when you really think about stuff and you can figure this out by trying to give a description of reality and carefully looking at how those descriptions keep failing.

>>20785276
>>20785627
This is what Nietzsche meant when suggesting a dead end future in the West languishing in "European Buddhism" practiced by post-Christian "White Mandarian" materialist brahmins.

>>20785704
>[prometheian 'satanism'] is the way
There's room for a positivism that is actually values 'neutral'. It just won't be as you imagine.

>>20787208
>Or maybe it is an Ikea cabinet since there's always too much shit you don't need and a few things missing that you do need
There it is.

>>20787747
>the admission that mysticism or esoteric knowledge are systematically, scientifically real.
The gods are active and present in the world of Plato, and antiquity. This is the Orphic, the 'Dionysian', whereas what has passed for rationalism and empiricism is the one practicing rites, auguries, astrology and the rest in 'Apollonian' forms all outs from ever synthesizing ItA[t]ll within/as oneself/-own

>>20789003
Inner earth had to be reopened to herald the return of the Titans -- who's to say the Orange psychopomp wasn't the scorpion in the story?

>>20792553
>>[prometheian 'satanism'] is the way
??is that a bad thing??

>>20783640
>give this nigga a "A" in college

>>20783959
>It purposefully forgets about what it truly is in the process, going further into Being (many beings).
How is this related to the collective unconscious? Did Jung ever read Hegel?

On a unrelated note, how does one block tripfags posts from showing?

>>20784156
>Literally BTFO by a planet. FUCKING REKT. He never recovered.
Ok I laughed.

>>20784211
>He rejects materialism and his theory of the world being a mind can be used by the religious to imply that God exists.
Yes, but atheists are not that clever.

>>20785217
Make it happen

>>20785293
>the 2,300 years between Plato and Hegel are one big cope for/against Plato
What’s the relation between both of them? I keep reading how they are related yet I fail to see the link.

>>20785395
>Leftists dont know that Hegel wanted homogeneous communities
Leftists want that too (no religions, no frontiers, one race {mestizos}) etc.

>>20785666
Fuck off satan.

>>20784156
Shut up christcuck no one pulled your chain

>>20783484
If you had asked nicely, I would have done it. But you didn't. I'm really intelligent, so that's a loss for you.

>>20793089
it already exists

bumperino

>>20791746
I don't know the metaphysical answers or whatever but I got over this as an issue a long time ago and it worked well for me. There's a scene from Waking Life that stuck with me when I was 20 and parts of it kept popping into my mind. There's a good chance you'll cringe at the gay guy listing cliches. I did originally but I like him now.
https://youtu.be/clY95Qc7DrI
>salsa dancing with my confusion, inabilities and frustrations
The act of desiring and never reaching some ultimate end the desire serves is part of the glory, kind of the main part as people tend to find out when they reach the goals they obsess about. I like to relate some of this to poker, the goal isn't to win the hand, it's to play well over time. Just do the right things and the wins come. Yes logically the desire is rooted in wanting wins but you want to train yourself to not focus on them, to wire the motivation circuits to do the right things independent of the outcome.
If you ignore all outcomes you of course don't learn so this isn't a simple formula, we're into the territory of evaluating what the right things to do are. Poker also has some simple practical answers to that, as in strategies with "positive expected value" are right. If you know you have one you don't have to improve it to confidently apply it. If you have a 1% edge in bets over time you win but even in poker the game meta evolves so there's never a final answer, just answers good enough to relatively confidently apply.

>>20783484
Fuck off and do your own book report faggot

>>20783519
Who was Hume coping with?

>Stands in your way.

>>20794628
>a book report on the PoS
kek, imagine being in a high school English class and being told to do that

bump

>>20789400
Guenon wasn't only a mediocre mathematician, but also a total schizo that believes in magic and astrology
>>20790111here's a good example on how he "uses" math to epxlain how a letter from sanskrit is actually an alchemicla symbol, the funny thing is that such a letter doesn't actually exist, he was a complete schizo and opium addict, his mind was so far gone from all thye opium and mysticism that he went so far as to believe a sect of satanist summoned an astral bear to atatck him on his sleep

>>20796911
seethe

bump

>>20783519
so they are basically not worth reading since thomas reid refuted hume?

>>20794840
John Locke, who coping with Descartes

>>20783530
>So all philosophy is coping against someone else's cope?
Yeah

>>20797645

kek you mad

bump

>>20785318
i don't get a word you're saying. why is philosophy so complicated? jesus fucking christ! you might as well be writing in arabic or some shit

>>20787747
bumping so high effort historian of philosopher might see my question

>>20783484
1) There's absolute beyond mundane thoughts/concepts/structures
2) That absolute is the consciousness

Basically same as Advaita/Hindus.

Is there any good (graphical) overview of all the movements/stages in Hegels phenomenology?
I.e. not some abbreviated summaries or explanations but some sort of flowchart with just the different terms like first sense certainty turning out to be abstract I and abstract this and so forth...
I have read the phenomenology multiple times and would say I mostly got it, but I always keep forgetting the order.

bumpavitch

>>20789400
>his fetishism of concepts or Begriffe, "the rational."
on the contrary, Begriffe "the concept" serves as a bridge between the real and the rational, it's the opposite of a fetish, is a push to objectivity, the absolute that becomes rational

>>20784035
https://youtu.be/QT13kk8HDDo

>>20785318
>Hegel thus derives that the Future will be beautiful as it will be the realization of the ultimate perfect synthesis

final proof that overthinking was his achilles heel

>>20786756
>The world is like fire

like what Parmenides said?

so basically the result of Hegel´s philosophy is nihilism? subjective and objective are false dichotomies and Truth is something nobody will get it so to speak because humans can´t grasp Truth

>>20802901
Define nihilism. Because if you read even one post on here you wouldn't think so.

>>20787747
Husserl wants to sift through the immanent content of consciousness, all the contents of consciousness even once we begin to be mindful of bracketing out the consciousness-transcending external world and are thus no longer "naive realists," to find the "transcendent IN RELATION TO immanent" bits, the structurally absolute and necessary (i.e. transcendental) elements of consciousness that enable contingent, finite acts of thinking. His way of getting at these transcendental "essences" (his term) is by means of careful training so that one can "see" (he is very big on visual metaphors, intuition, etc.) the "essences." Ultimately all his phenomenological proofs rely on this sorting, sifting, and "seeing" of essential structures. It's not accidental that Husserl uses derivatives of the traditional Platonic and Greek philosophical terms for "knowledge by direct insight, as explicitly opposed to mediate discursive/symbolic knowledge," noesis (as opposed to dianoia).

There is a tradition in philosophy that really picks up with people like Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Wittgenstein, of drawing attention to the fact that noesis is hard to justify, or at least hard to prove the existence of. One can give equally plausible accounts of consciousness in which the "transcendental conditions" might be OPERATIVE at some level, but that one has no way of PROVING, much less exhibiting and then apodictically deducing stuff from, anything "essential" to consciousness - it might simply be the case that from our perspective "inside" consciousness, "language languages itself," and no arrangement or examination of language or its symbols will ever reveal anything other than language and symbols, i.e. there is no uncontroversial form of a noetic act as distinct from dianoia.

Even though Heidegger shifts the terms of Husserl's inquiry from a kind of top-down approach (starting with essences/structures and explaining the function of contingent thoughts within them) to a bottom-up approach influenced by hermeneutics (starting from contingent, pre-interpreted "beings" and working back to Dasein, the ground of beings), he still maintains a similar phenomenological method of "seeing," because fundamentally Heidegger is still really just trying to get YOU, the performer of the phenomenological act, to arrive at things that Husserl called "primal" and "essential" but that Heidegger is more likely to call "originary" (or similar). Both of them want you to return to the "primal events" that founded certain discourses, to uncover what that discourse "REALLY meant" (its Sinn), prior to being occluded by habit, etc. The only criterion for what it "really meant," in both their cases, is ultimately an act of intuition, a "seeing" of the Sinn as distinct from the inauthentic, preontological/naive version you started with.

>>20783484
Platonism. Literally, just Platonism.

Go read Proclus' Elements of Theology for the best systematic explanation of idealism that the world has ever given us

>>20803014
Destruktion (Abbauen) of something like the hardened-up Latin/scholastic version of the Aristotelian conception of being ultimately has to culminate in the "presencing" of the latter. Same with creating an opposition between "authentic" and "inauthentic" experiences of being/meaning/Sinn/etc., it is all still predicated on noesis in a subtle way, unless one is very careful to express everything in purely hermeneutic terms (like "I didn't draw your attention to any luminously evident primal origin of Aristotelian discourse on being, as somehow more authentic, I just hermeneutically informed you of other possibilities of interpretation on the same plane"). There's a tension in all phenomenology here I think, between the "Platonic" element that wants to get at what is "more really real" in consciousness and thus to sift through the "merely accidental," and the less ambitious, basically sceptical perspective that culminates in quietist, finitist "linguistic philosophy" (like Rorty).

>I think that many philosophers end up going down this path.
I do too but it's always unsystematic. There are some traditions like Böhmean theosophy and various forms of Buddhism that simply start from the (itself unproved/unproveable) assumption that dianoia is insufficient, that the paradox of how to overcome it cannot be formulated from within it, and then likewise presuppose the existence of extra-discursive knowledge (sometimes called "supersensible"), and then focus on giving "cartographies" or rough itineraries of the extra-discursive/supersensible while making no claims to their perfect adequacy or discursive proveability. If they're right, then the next great phase of philosophy will be an initially unproveable coincidence with mysticism and esotericism and the adoption of a provisionally empirical standpoint. To put it vulgarly, "turns out when you get to Level 3, you start seeing angels, but why are my angels blue guys and yours are spinning wheels" as opposed to intra-discursive proofs like "Logically, the Absolute must be a ball." There is something called angelology, there was actually a pre-Christian neoplatonic angelology/daimonology (not demonology).

But I don't mean to be flippant here and say that we at our current level of consciousness should just start taking DMT and trying to talk to anything we find. I think it's important that most, really close to all esoteric traditions emphasise the saintliness and goodness of enlightened beings.

>How the hell do you know all of this?
I don't know, you should also just assume I'm wrong about everything unless you verify it for yourself. I'm just trying to sift through all these things for the common and essential elements, kind of a Husserl approach to philosophy itself, or looking for Heidegger's "remembrances of being" in other/past traditions but in a slightly different way from how he intended.

>>20803020
>I don't know, you should also just assume I'm wrong about everything unless you verify it for yourself.
I'm somewhat well-versed in most of the thinkers that you mentioned, which is why I'm asking you these questions. And what you say strikes true for the most part. Thank you anon for revisiting the thread and effort-posting.

bump

>>20784024
>So according to him matter doesn't exist and its all in our heads?
No. The other anon is wrong. It's a very popular but misleading interpretation of Hegel to present him as denying the reality of the mind-independent world in the manner of classic idealism. Hegel is an idealist in the sense that matter, the external world, is teleologically realising the Absolute Idea, not simply dependent on it in any crude Berkeleyan sense. Idea is the final cause, not the first cause.

This goes back to what I said >>20783584, where I pointed out that Hegel's fundamental philosophical move is to escape Kant's sceptical attack on metaphysics by resurrecting a historicised sort of Aristotelian teleology. This is absolutely central to understanding his system.

>>20797645
bro you're the one trying to sell a book on math by a dude that believes in astrology and magic, and mystical math letters

>>20793041
Yet Pluto is again into considerations into not being a planet. Hegel might be right.

>>20802901
Read Schopenhauer.

bump

Which of his early works should one read before the Phenomenology?

>>20808630
The Difference essay and maybe Faith and Knowledge.

>>20808630

Pretty much this desu

>>20801273
>absolute beyond concept
no, the concept is the body of the absolute, is how the absolute manifest
>) That absolute is the consciousness
no, the absolute is self consciousness on it's most developed form

>Basically same as Advaita/Hindus.
Hegel refuted Advaita on the prologue of the phenomenology

>>20810055
So not "Early theological writings"?

>>20811792
Nobody's stopping you, but the Difference essay is a much more helpful bridge between Fichte and Schelling/early Hegel.
You can just start with Phenomenology. It is an incredibly difficult book, but people saying that you need to read every letter and diary entry that Hegel wrote before it in order to understand it are just pulling tour nose.

>>20812837
Also reading the Differenzschrift will just confuse anon unless he's already intimately familiar with Schelling and Fichte.

>>20783640
>So Spirit becomes the organically free process of the world in its development toward free and rational knowledge of itself, which is also the union of all apparent opposites
This is why its been argued Stirner was the last Hegelian because this his conclusion.