/lit/ - Literature

BTFO

>>21281538
If Hegela actually wrote that then he is fucking retarded

>>21281538
>"Noah got drunk only one time, to become then, according to the Scriptures, a judicious man, while the insanities of Hegel in the Doctoral Dissertation, where he criticizes Newton and questions the utility of a search for new planets are still wisdom if one compares them with his later remarks."

> - Carl Friedrich Gauss, German mathematician

>>21281538
Kek

I will never understand why you faggots treat philosophers like your favorite sports teams

>>21281538
science can't refute philosophy, they're a different order of things. Schope was a dope.

>>21282192
what an obvious dodge lmao. for a lover of wisdom you sure seem unwilling to engage with thoughts and criticism

>>21282083
+1

>>21282083
Salty Hegelian clearly, since there was no sports team esque advocacy, but merely a demonstration of pseudery (that clearly hurt your feefees hece your irrational reply).
>>21282192
Science can refute philosophy when philosophy makes empirically testable claims. You are the "dope" that artificially seperates fields in your mind completely without any nuance because le words look different instead of actually understanding their meaning and noticing their dependencies, similarities, and intersections. Kill yourself now.

>>21282475
So emotional in your responses, it’s clear you’ve missed the point entirely. Nothing I say will ever change that because you are lost.

>>21281538
I love this guy like you won't believe.

>>21281649
Holy Christ, is this real? God I want this to be real.

>>21281538
Weight is newtons pulling you down to earth. The electromagnetic force increased the newtons pulling on the bar, therefore the weight increased.

>>21281538
>Hegel was an electric universe chad
Holy based...

>>21283035
And even if you say weight is normal force, then if you have a piece of metal on a table and put a magnet under the table, the normal force on the metal will still increase, thus the weight increased. Are you guys retarded? There’s nothing wrong with what Hegel said.

>>21281538
>Schopenhauer believed that Hegel could only have gained acceptance as a serious thinker because people do not judge with their own intellect, but instead accept the authority of others, especially of academies.
This is pretty obvious to anyone who is capable of independent thought.

>>21283039
>chad
Gigachad

>>21281538
The gravity value (used in identifying minerals) of a magnetized object would test higher if it was performed over a piece of metal, yes.

>>21283048
>independent thought.
So I’m assuming you read Hegel and came to your own independent conclusion?

>>21283035
>>21283039
>>21283042
>>21283061
From OP stated sarcastically: >...the high doctrines of that wisdom are unattainable by lower intelligences, and that what appears as nonsense to me is bottomless profundity

Schopenhauer brainlets do not see the irony.

>>21281538
Schopie is such a beautiful man I love him and want to give him a hug as he pushes me away because he isn't a "hugger"

>>21283077
seethe

>>21281538
I will never understand why you faggots treat philosophers like your favorite sports teams

>>21281538
Hegel like many a journalist and YouTuber/pop “philosopher” today probably had a high verbal IQ as to appear profound (to the stupid) but an abysmal actual IQ.

>>21283064
Correct. Did I read everything Hegel ever wrote? Absolutely not. You don't need to read a significant quantity to gauge someone's intellectual caliber.

>>21283035
>>21283062
>mfw there are people in this thread right now who do not even understand the inverse square law of gravitational attraction (that a given mass always results in a given force/weight) created by Galileo and Newton
>mfw they are unwittingly arguing Aristotelean physics against modern physics just to defend Hegel's retarded statement that "mass becomes heavier without increasing."

>>21283243
>tfw Aristotle was right all along

>>21283243
Mfw a faggot tries to correct me but doesnt know gravity value expresses the density of a material.

>>21283243
You know it 'til you know it no longer.

>>21281538
>suicide watch
Truly dialectical

lmao hegeloids didnt even understand this flaw when neatly explained to them but went ahead and unwittingly reproduced it in this very thread!

>>21284219
Hello. I am Hegeliam scientist. Hegel cannot be wrong. This is demonstrated from a priori principles. Only zoomers do not understand.

>>21281538
Fucking lmao. Hegelians in absolute shambles!
>Durrrr it's gedding hewier!!!!
>>21282192
>science can't refute philosophy, they're a different order of things.
Hegelians are such faggots lmao. Science is continuous with philosophy and refutes it when empirical or scientific claims are made. You can't just say "2+2=5! that's my philosophy so you can't refute it!" and then get away with it, lol. Seethe.

>>21282083
Schopenhauer devoted a lot of effort to exposing Hegel's charlatanism. This thread, therefore, is more than justified as it is absolutely in the Schopenhauerian spirit (regardless of if that makes you seethe or not).

>>21283243
Nigger do you inow what the definition of weight is? It’s the firces counteracting gravity, when you step on a scale you’re measuring your normal force. Only if you use the specific definition of weight as the force of gravity acting on it is hegel wrong, but that’s arbitrary and many teachers will teach that it is normal force. There’s no universal technical definition of “weight” because it is ‘t a physical quantity that fundamentally figures in to anything. There is nothing strictly wrong with what Hegel said. You’re a faggot.

>>21284301
And btw the reason defining weight as gravity acting on an object is retarded because then that would states astronauts on the ISS still weigh quite a bit despite being in constant free fall and being unable to weigh themselves in any way or use their weight.

>>21283035
>>21283042
>>21283077
>>21283300
>>21284301
Weight = Mass X Gravity. None of these factors are effected by magnetism.

>>21283209
what are estimates for Heglel's IQ? i give him no more than 130

>>21284321
Nigher I already addressed this, it’s arbitrary how you define it therefore there is nothing wrong with what Hegel said.

>>21284328
> The word is sometimes defined differently so if you do some equivocation the sophist is still correct!
I am not impressed. If you define it any other way then the fact is simply not worth noting. Ask yourself this: what was Hegel thinking when he wrote that?
As always, Hegel has said something obvious, obscure, or just plain wrong.

>>21284328
What moves the iron bar down on one side is the mechanical force created by the magnetic force pushing the iron up on the other side. Gravity is not a factor. Your error was mentioning newtons as a force here >>21283035
Newton is a unit of measurment, not a force. The weight has not increased, the weight and the gravitational force stay the exact same, the bar moves because a mechanical and electromagnetic force have been applied on top of it.

>>21283300
>>21284301
>>21284318
>>21284328
This anon btfo the other anons so hard they just got silent. Hegelchad ftw.

>>21284338
I don’t know what he was thinking because you took the quote totally out of context. Schopenhauer is the one doing sophistry by insisting that Hegel is wrong when Hegel is clearly operating on a different definition of weight.

>>21284341
What? The quantity of newtons literally is force.

>>21281538
Is Hegel that beginning of the end of philosophers being good at math and physics?

>>21284354
Yep, it peaked with Leibniz and then suddenly dropped into the abyss

>>21284349
Yes, but you in your post attributed it to weight, when newton is just a measurment of any force. The weight newtons stay the same no matter how many mechanical newtons you add on top. What changes is the total force applied, which is weight newtons+mechanical newtons=total newtons
Weight cannot possibly change in hegel's scenario, only mechanical is subject to change.

>>21282083
>I will never understand why you faggots treat sports team like your favorite philosophers

FTFY

>>21284354
>>21284357
It’s reversing today though, most people who are respected as philosophers today have scientific background. Look at Curt Jaimungal’s guests.
>>21284359
Net force changes, net force is still in Newtons. Idk what this arbitrary distinction between force and mechanical fircebis.

>>21284367
If put a stone on the ground it's net force is 0, or else it would move. Because the ground creates an equal normal force to the weight that counters it. But the weight has not become 0, the object still has the exact same weight force it had when it was free falling towards the ground, only the net force of the system changed.
This distinction is important or else all your calculations will be a fucking mess.
You are wrong and hegel was wrong.

>>21284375
Dude holy shit I didn’t say the entire net force was weight, I literally said that the normal force was weight. In Hegel’s case the net force does change from zero because the bar tips.

>>21284395
Yes, but hegel specifically said weight. I get he may have not meant exactly what he said but when arguing this type of stuff you have to be precise with the terminlogy.

>put equal weights on balancing scale
>put magnet under one
>suddenly becomes unbalanced
>put bar on spring scale
>put magnet underneath
>the reading increases
>go to ISS
>become weightless
Why are you guys denying directly observable, empirical, scientific reality, and using sophistical charlatan definitions of weight????!?! What seems like nonsense to me apparently has profound truth here.

>>21284401
It seems like Hegel is the only one doing experiments here and all guys are relying on the authority of a select few academic textbook writers who don’t even have consensus.I’m starting to think the only reason this so called understanding of weight is popular is because of your tendency to rely on the authority of others.

>>21283048
This. We should also ignore Schopenhaur for this reason

>>21281538
>Schopen "women are uglier than men" hauer
Gaaaaaaaaaaaay

>>21284343
>you took the quote totally out of context.
I'm not OP but regardless OP didn't write the greentext either, he quotes Wikipedia.
>Schopenhauer is the one doing sophistry
Are you sure about that? what notion of weight was he operating on?
>I don’t know what he was thinking because you took the quote totally out of context.
Here is the full paragraph in a different translation
> Differences in the density of matter are explained by postulating pores. Densification is accounted for by the invention of empty interstices therefore, and these are spoken of as if they were actually present, although they have not been demonstrated by physics, despite its claim that it bases itself upon experience and observation. The fact that a bar of iron which is balancing on its fulcrum will lose its equilibrium when it is magnetized, so that the weight of one of its poles will show itself to be greater than that of the other, is an example of the existence of the specification of gravity. One part is so infected here, that it becomes heavier without changing its volume. Consequently the specific gravity of the matter increases, without any augmentation of its mass. Physics attempts to explain density in its own way, by assuming certain propositions, i.e. (1) That given an equal number of material parts of equal size, there will be no difference in weight. From this it follows (2) that it is the measure of the number of parts which determines the weight. It also determines the space, so that (3) two entities of equal weight also fill the same amount of space. Consequently, (4) when two entities of equal weight have different volumes the amount of space they occupy as materials is the same, and their difference is assumed to be the result of their pores. The first three propositions make it necessary to postulate the pores in the fourth. These propositions are not based upon experience however, they are based merely upon the understanding and its proposition of identity. They are therefore formal apriori inventions, as the pores are. Kant has already opposed intensity to the quantitative determination of amount, and posited a constant number of parts with a higher propensity for filling space, instead of more parts in an equal volume. In this way he has initiated a so-called dynamic physics. The determination of intensive quantum would be just as valid as that of extensive quantum, although the popular conception of density mentioned above has confined itself to the latter category. In this instance however, the determination of intensive magnitude has the advantage of implying measure, and above all of indicating a being-in-self which in its Notional determination is immanent determinateness of form, and which only appears, by means of comparison, as a general quantum. Dynamic physics gets no further than regarding these differences as extensive or intensive, and so fails to express any reality (§ 103 Rem.).

>>21284401
Yes, going in the ISS makes you weightless. Not massless, which is what kg and g , libs, etc measure, but weightless indeed.
>>21284406
Actual retard, scientific words have proper definitions, not the headcanon you or hegel may pull out of your ass.

>>21284601
>Yes, going in the ISS makes you weightless. Not massless, which is what kg and g , libs, etc measure, but weightless indeed.
then weight doesn’t have anything to do with gravity because there is still significant gravitational force on people in the ISS.
>Actual retard, scientific words have proper definitions, not the headcanon you or hegel may pull out of your ass.
I literally posted the source that said different textbooks have differrent definitions of weight. It isn’t a fundamental term so the definition is arbitrary.

>>21284629
Weightless is an exaggeration, it would be like 0.00001 N of weight because as you said gravity still is there.
>Different textbooks have different definitions
Lol. Lmao. Please do tell me which physics textbook told you weight is not mass x gravity's accelleration.

>>21284657
>Weightless is an exaggeration, it would be like 0.00001 N of weight because as you said gravity still is there.
Dumbass, it’s only a small decrease, huge centripetal force is required to keep the station in orbit, that comes from gravity. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

>>21284657
>Lol. Lmao. Please do tell me which physics textbook told you weight is not mass x gravity's accelleration.
Literally just click on the citation from the Wikipedia page I posted

>>21284675
You are right, I was wrong on that one, the point stands though, the definition of weight hegel uses as in "the net force of the system is the weight" is wrong.
>>21284682
I cannot read your pic due to poor image quality on the phone, but wikipedia proves that all definitions of weight are a byproduct of gravity, while hegel is using it as a byproduct of magnetic reaction from another object.

>>21284702
Holy shit the weight is the ducking normal force not the net force, and if you just click on fucking citation 7 in the pic you fucking posted you will see that the book says weight is not equal to gravity times mass when something is accelerating so it must be due to the forces counteracting the force pushing you down, in which case there is nothing wrong with Hegel saying that electromagnetic force can increase weight. You just seem to be too retarded to grasp this so I’m not going to keep trying to drill basic mechanics into your brain.

>>21284722
BUT HEGEL IS NOT USING THE NORMAL FORCE

>>21284732
That the bar tips means if you put your hand on the bar to stop it from tipping it will feel heavier, thus “the bar tips” implies that the bar is heavier.

>>21284751
That's not what he meant, considering his paragraph here >>21284587 implied he observed the thing, and thought the force of gravity (not the normal he never mentions!) Had increased.
You are making up stuff in his stead, contraddicting him to defend him. Please stop.

>>21284770
They don't have a reply to that paragraph because they don't read Hegel, despite sucking his dick (typical /lit/).

>>21283243
It’s dialectical force! Y-You only learn about it in the humanities, dummy STEMchad

lmao the mental gymnastics some Hegelians are pulling here are embarrasing. Just take the L.

>>21281538
Schopenpower

>>21284283
2+2=4 isnt science or empirical lol

>>21284343
as per usual, hegeloids have no reply whatsoever to the pure facts of Schop

https://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~belenka/Schopen.pdf

Here's some physicists weighing in on the topic.

Anybody got any info regarding Schopenhauer and the Occult?

>>21285899
>math isn’t science
They don’t get tired of embarrassing themselves do they?

I think I now know why Schopenhauer hated Hegel....

>>21284401
but weight ought to only relate to mass which is unaffected by ionic charge (literally) in every way.
Your weight of mass doesn’t increase just because someone is pushing down on you.

So, this is the power of the philosophy pseuds that post here. pathetic.

>Critizise a non-essential small fragment of an author instead of critizising the system
>Make it look as if you debunked the author and the system

Schopenhauer could not fully debunk Hegel because their systems were not that much different either, just Schopenhauer ontology is more "down to earth" and sensible while Hegel's ontology is verbose and removed.

>>21287622
>Hegel's prized philosophy of science
>non-essential fragment
It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about

> Put a magnet on a scale with S facing up
> Record the weight
> Hover another S magnet over the scale
> Record the weight
MFW Hegel was right

someone should post this on >>>/sci/

>>21281538
Hegel is chiefly responsible for modern optimism. How could he have failed to see that consciousness changes only its forms and modalities, but never progresses?

A Parisian bum.

>tfw not smart

>>21281538
Based. Fuck Hegel and the brainlets who eat his shit up.

>>21284587
>Hegel was a dumbass lol
>No he wasn't! He was actually correct!
>Scientifically, he was wrong.
>N-no! He meant it specifically in a different way!
>That is not at all indicated by what he wrote.
>I-it-it's out of context!
>Here is the full paragraph of what he wrote, demonstrating how he was a dumbass.
>silence

>>21286043
>[author 1] Tel-Aviv university, Israel
>[author 2] Bar-Ilan university, Israel
lmao

>>21286043
This article is so fucking bullshit. They admit from the outset that Hegel's remarks are confused at best, and then proceed to talk about completely unrelated scenarios involving certain quantum effects of magnetization as if to justify Hegel's confusion.

>>21287622
This Anon is correct >>21287665
Did you know that Hegel’s most famous work, the Phenomenology os Spirit, was meant to pave the way to his work positive science or natural philosophy which would be the culmination of his system and standing for “Absolute Knowing” (LMAO). The fruits of us such “Absolute Knowledge” are absolutely and positively hilarious. The only thing more hilarious is there being Hegelians in the 21th century. He was a snake oil salesman.

>>21287731
>Hegel is chiefly responsible for modern progressivism*

>>21288022
>The only thing more hilarious is there being Hegelians in the 21th century. He was a snake oil salesman.
Redpill me on 21st century Hegelians

>>21287844
>proceed to talk about completely unrelated scenarios involving certain quantum effects of magnetization as if to justify Hegel's confusion.
we wuz quantum physicists n shieet
t. Hegelians probably

>>21288114
Arguably Zizek, but by “Hegelians” I meant the retards ITT (which, I know, aren’t really Hegelians, or possibly haven’t even read the snake oil salesmaster, but you get what I mean).

>>21288128
>Zizek
OOF
No wonder snake oilmen like snake oil salesmaster

>>21281538
>claims someone doesn’t understand logic
>compares physics to a syllogism about how many legs geese have
LOL

>>21287844
>>21288119
Fucking lmao.

>>21288223
Fucking lmao. How are you this smug despite being this filtered by such a simple point?
This thread, man. Best thing to happen to /lit/ in a while!

>>21287758
What are you having trouble with, anon?

>>21288244
I suppose that’s one way to avoid addressing what is obviously a faulty analogy, kek. Just accuse someone of being “smug,” or getting “filtered.” Just make sure to not actually engage with anything.

>>21288258
Engage with what, faggot? lol. All you said was that his analogy was wrong, or rather, that he was wrong to draw the analogy. But why? why is his analogy wrong exactly? and don't say
>durrr physics isn't ducks!
Nigger, that's how analogies work. The point of the analogy was to try to examine Hegel's dumbfuck retard logic, but as he couldn't read Hegel's mind he analyzed the most plausible logic that would lead to Hackgel's asinine conclusion and where it failed. The analogy was meant to highlight why the logic is flawed by applying the same logical form to something more familiar---where the context makes it easier to detect the fallacy. The fact that you are missing the point this hard is just too fucking embarrassing. kek.

>>21288287
>ducks
or geese, whatever.

>>21288258
It's not a faulty analogy. Both are cases of the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent:

If an animal is a dog (Z), then it has four legs (B).
My cat (Y) has four legs (B).
Therefore, my cat (Y) is a dog (Z).

It is true that if Z then B; but the reverse is not true (if B then Z). Therefore it is false to affirm that if a cat (Y) is B, then a cat is a dog (Z).

It can also be seeing as a case of the fallacy of the undistributed middle (which is a special case of affirming the consequent):

All students (Z) carry backpacks (B).
My grandfather (Y) carries a backpack (B).
Therefore, my grandfather (Y) is a student (Z).

The middle term, carries a backpack, that appears in both premises is undistributed because neither of its uses applies to all backpack carriers.

The two examples cited by Schopenhauer clearly follow the same fallacious pattern:

All geese (Z) have two legs (B)
Humans (Y) have two legs (B)
Therefore, humans (Y) are geese (Z)

Everything that becomes heavier on one side (Z) falls to that side (B)
This magnetized bar (Y) falls to one side (B)
therefore it (Y) has become heavier in that place (Z)

Therefore, it's a perfect analogy.
You would know this if you knew basic logic or had an IQ above 80, which, being a Hegelian, one can only assume you don't.

>>21288287
>durrr physics isn't ducks!
He must literally think this.
This thread only goes to show that Hegelians of all stripes are low-IQ individuals which are simply mystified by Hegel's obscure language -- and, like their master, don't know logic. Sad!

Who is wining Schopenhauer or Hegel?

>>21288475
Definitely Schopenhauer (as always). The Hackgaylians are NOT sending their best.

>>21288467
The issue with the analogy is that Hegel did not formulate the portion of his writing Schopenhauer is criticizing in terms of a syllogism. Hegel’s writing implies he would have disagreed with Schopenhauer’s characterization.

Schopenhauer rewrote it in his own terms, and therefore his own syllogism is not analogous to Hegel’s own logic.

>>21288581
Alright, one last time; this is very simple but you'll have to pay attention:
> Hegel made an erroneous claim.
> Schopenhauer is investigating the logic that lead Hegel to make this erroneous claim.
> Schopenhauer examined the most plausible chain of "reasoning" that would conclude with this erroneous claim.
> Schopenhauer demonstrated why the reasoning is fallacious.
To prove that Schopenhauer was wrong you would have to show that (a.1.) there is a more plausible chain of reasoning that would lead to that erroneous claim and that (a.2.) this is the chain of reasoning that Hegel likely used; or that (b.1.) there is a less plausible chain of reasoning (e.g. Kant wrote that magnets make metal iron bars heavier on one side and Kant is smart so this must be true) and that (b.1.) Hegel used this logic to come to this conclusion.
Note: (b.1) and (b.2) would only make Hegel look more retarded than he likely is and none of these would change the fact that Hegel made an erroneous claim.
As it is, his own syllogism seems to me to be the most likely derivation of this erroneous claim and I think it is likely that Hegel used it to derive the same.

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....

>>21286154
Absolutely correct. I have no foot in the argument about Hegel vs Schopenhauer, but pure math is distinctly ideal and inductive. Scientific studies rely on empiricism to call themselves consistent. Math replies on axioms. There is no empirical observation of mathematics without taking the observation, abstracting it, and comparing it to axioms. You cannot "add" 2 apples to another pair without first the notion of what 2, 4 and addition are.

>>21288773
You seem to think that empiricism is the only criterion for science, but that is a peculiar view, for which you can argue for, as there is no universally accepted definition of science and it has become somewhat of a prestige term that every academic field aims to be included in it, but it remains that mathematics has been considered a science (if not THE paradigm of science) throughout most of recorded human history. In fact I’d be hard pressed to find any scientist even today that held the contrary view.

>>21288928
Is engineering considered a science?

>>21288773
>>21288928
Jesus fucking Christs math is an apodictic science while most others are empirical sciences, there, enough of this autism already.
And empirical sciences uses "pure" ideal objects all the time to make predictions. A center of gravity, for example.

>>21285899
>>21288773
It's another case of words being defined differently
> Modern science is typically divided into three major branches:[16] natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies;[17][18] and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules.[19][20] There is disagreement whether the formal sciences are science disciplines,[21][22][23] because they do not rely on empirical evidence.[24][22] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.[25][26][27]
The formal sciences are clearly science in the original sense of the word (as opposed to the more narrow empirical sense of the word that became popular after WWII I want to say although I'm not really sure about that and I might be wrong). Mathematics can be said to be the science of quantity.

>>21288942
I don’t think so. It’s more like an application of science. The Greeks and medievals call this kind of thing productive science or art (tekhne, ars).

>>21288637
>To prove Schopenhauer was wrong you would have to . . .
Lol, instead of appointing yourself arbiter of how other people write their arguments, maybe actually pay attention to what’s being said.

Schopenhauer, the notorious anti-Hegelian, who accused another thinker of being a charlatan, felt perfectly at liberty to inaccurately rewrite the work of that thinker and then criticize him on that basis — a work of charlatanism, hypocrisy, and sophistry if ever there was one.

Already he reformulates Hegel in terms of a syllogism when Hegel himself was not using syllogistic reasoning in the relevant part of the work. That’s bad enough, virtually guarantees his points will have nothing to do with what’s being said. But then his analogy ends up not working.

Let’s look at this analogy and see if it holds up, leaving aside the issue of it being a syllogism:

>Everything that becomes heavier on one side falls to that side . . .

Really now? “Everything?” Literally “everything?”Is that what Hegel thought? Even if that object is evenly balanced? How much heavier does it have to become? We’re to believe that this is what Hegel literally thought?

Let’s look at what Hegel said.

>when a bar of iron, evenly balanced on its fulcrum, is magnetized, it loses its equilibrium and shows itself to be heavier at one pole than at the other.

Interesting. Hegel does not refer to “everything,” rather the highly specific case of a bar of iron being balanced on its fulcrum. Does he claim anywhere that “everything that becomes heavier on one side falls to that side?” No, he was speaking about a bar of iron that was balanced on its fulcrum.

In other words, the premise Schopenhauer imputes to Hegel is too broad, on top of being presented in a form of reasoning Hegel was not using in the relevant section. Hence, Schopenhauer’s analogy had nothing to do with Hegel’s actual thought process, and it is therefore a faulty analogy. The only reason he probably wrote “everything” instead of being more specific is to match his shitty analogy with the geese.

>>21288952
Based Wittgenstein detangler. Thanks for guiding me out of the fly bottle.

>>21288960
Interesting.

>>21281538
I'll weigh in and say that while Hegel might not have been completely accurate, Schopenhauer is doing a bad faith interpretation so I'll give this point to the Hegelians.

>>21288970
>Lol, instead of appointing yourself arbiter of how other people write their arguments, maybe actually pay attention to what’s being said.
Nice dodge but please tell us how Hegel came to his conclusion. We are waiting.
He didn't just come to it out of nowhere, did he? so how did he come to this conclusion? What about a magnetic bar losing its equilibrium and tipping to one side caused him to think it became heavier on one side? what is the similarity between these two phenomena that caused him to erroneously consider them to be one and the same?
Lol. If you weren't such a disingenuous faggot this would be easy.

>>21288976
>Interesting.
It really is interesting to consider the metamorphoses of words and concepts such as arts and sciences throughout history. Many universities to this day have the phrase ARS ET SCIENTIA in their coat of arms. That still reflects and ancient and medieval view. Art didn't just necessarily mean things like painting and sculpture (the so-called fine arts), but every kind of knowledge that had a view to produce something.
Likewise science (epistheme, scientia) meant demonstrative science or that field of knowledge that demonstrated conclusions, indirectly and through a reasoning process, from putative undemonstrable "basic facts": theorems from axioms (in the case the mathematical sciences) and causes from effects (in the case of natural sciences). In the (pre-critical) Aristotelian and Scholastic view sense-perceptible objects were considered self-evident (undemonstrable) and a given, and therefore akin to axioms in mathematics. Kant would call this kind of reasoning dogmatic or acritical because it assumes an ontology before the epistemology is dealt with, namely that sense-perceptible objects were a given (naturalism).
This modern opinion that mathematics is not a science because it's not empirical also commits dogmatism in its own way by (uncritically) assuming an ontology, namely that mathematics doesn't real (because mathematical objects don't exist). But that is assumed, not demonstrated. I know for a fact (although not in depth) there is a thing called mathematical realism (or mathematical platonism) in the philosophy of mathematics that holds that mathematical objects are real, and at least one top physicist (Roger Penrose) that holds this view, so the debate goes on.

>in my main work (vol. 2, ch. 47) I described how the state is essentially a mere institution of protection against external attacks on the whole and internal attacks on individuals against one another. From this it follows that the necessity of the state, in the final analysis, is based on the well-known injustice of the human race; without this there would be no thought of the state, since no one would have to fear infringement of his rights and a mere union against the attacks of wild animals or the elements would have only a remote similarity to a state. From this standpoint one clearly sees the narrow-mindedness and shallowness of the philosophasters who in pompous phrases depict the state as the highest purpose and the blossom of human existence, thereby delivering an apotheosis of philistinism.

t. §123 of essay on jurisprudence and politics

>>21289090
2/2
Like I said in another post I don't think there is presently an universally accepted concept of science (although pop scientists seem to think there is). People tend to go with something like "any systematic field of study", which is generic enough to not upset anyone and can include from mathematics to hard physics, but also gender studies...
Like I said science has come to mean more of a prestige term that academics and institutions want to attach their names and fields to for the purposes of acquiring and maintaining wealth, social status and, as has become more evident in the COVID pandemic, driving policy.
So in practice, I'd say science today is whatever the institutions serving the status quo say it is for the purposes of maintaining said status quo.
But is it really only today? Was not Schopenhauer criticizing just that in his time, in some of his most mordent passages against professional academics?

>>21289144
Why was he so based? charlatans, sophists, and philosophasters need not apply.

Hegel is wrong because he thinks higher weight means higher density, not because he thinks the electromagnetic force can increase weight. But Schopenhauer chose to criticize him on the one point he wasn’t wrong. Thus, both are retarded.

>>21289167
And was not Hegel the archetypal intellectual in service of the status quo? (Yes he was.)

>>21284328
>>21284342
>>21283300
>>21284301
>>21284318

"In many cases the normal force is simply equal to the weight of an object, but that's only when the normal force is the only thing counteracting the weight. That is not always true, and one should always be careful to calculate any force by applying Newton's second law." -physics.bu.edu

An object with mass falling to the ground from the top of a building still has weight. Just like your mother, the weight doesn't disappear because you want it to.

A normal force is a force that is perpendicular to two surfaces that are in contact.

Example 1. If you place a book on a table, the book exerts a normal force downward on the table while the table exerts an equal normal force upward on the book (an example of Newton’s third law). Why, you might ask, is the book pushing down on the table? There can be a lot of reasons. If nothing else is in contact with the book, it can just be the gravitational force the earth exerts on the book - that is, its weight - which the table then opposes. But what if in addition to the gravitational force, you are pushing downward on the book as well? In that case, you push on the book, gravity “pulls” on the book, the book pushes against the table with the sum of those two forces, and the table pushes upward on the book with a force equal to the force the book exerts on the table (Newton’s third law). In that case, the normal force is that interaction between the book and the table, but is it not equal to the weight of the book.

Example 2. Stand up. Now jump straight up. How did you do that? Well, you crouched a bit, then straightened your legs while pushing against the floor. Because of that added force, you increased the normal force on the floor making it greater than your weight. And that means that the normal force of the floor against your feet was also greater than your weight. And since the net force on you was upward, you accelerated upward. That is, you jumped because the normal force was greater than your weight.

>>21281538
Absolute Will is still Hegelian Absolutism.
Nigga is stuck on the same problematic Monistic dialectic of existential self-erasure i.e. Nihilism.
Both Hegel and Schop suck.

>>21289277
>you have weight while falling
ok, then measure your weight without stopping the fall.

>>21289312
>weight only exists if you can measure it.
Well, at least we know your answer to that question about the tree falling in the woods.

>>21289312
>measure your weight without stopping the fall
Simple.
W - D = mg
What is your difficulty with this?

>>21289355
imaginary quantity that does nothing and cannot be measured

>>21289364
What is the imaginary quantity that can't be measured?

>>21289377
The magnitude of any number cannot be measured with any tool.

>>21289410
We’re not talking about the “magnitude of any number” (whatever that means) though. We’re talking about weight (spoiler: it’s perfectly measurable).