/lit/ - Literature

>>21879146
he knew he was a coomer bourgeois lawyer and that bourgeois are sex addicts at night and desperate for public posturing at day after they took power saying to the peasants that the bourgeois are awesome and the monarchists are evil. So he created a huge mental masturbation for his bourgeois roastied audience and it worked.
He added a little ''scientific'' appearances to please the antichristian turds and of course he was BTFO by real scientists . For instance he said that scientifically there couldn't be a new planet at the time, and of course one more planet was discovered. He never did any ''science'' after that kek.
He is Kant's next generation of diarrheic atheist addicted to their own brain farts.

>>21879146
The secret of existence, and the course of history. It's about to be rediscovered and reappreciated with all the cognitive science, information theory and psychedelics research of today.
Dont listen to fags like >>21879161 who eternally quote the same old story about the 7 planets which was an absolute nothingburger but somehow made the rounds as the gotcha that btfos Hegel.

that Böhme was the key to everythang

>>21879146
Charlatan

>>21879146

>>21879318
The recipe for taking incredibly intelligent students with perfect GRE scores, top of their class at elite universities, with creativity, and great minds of mathematics and getting them to produce nothing but schizophrenia for the next 40 years of their lives.

His Logic is hands down the most impossible thing the read in history. It's the Ulysses of academics. I've seen obviously talent mathematicians say how great it is, but I am no slouch myself and I am 99% sure this is just posturing bullshit. It is incoherent.

>>21880708
What Hegel does to you.

>>21880759
Wtf is this I ain’t trying to do geometry I’m trying to read some books

>>21879333

This , also dialectical materialism.

Read Böhme, read the Bible, read Marx. Achieve Gnosis.

>>21880759
Category theory, for when group theory and topos isn't autistic enough for you. Hegel has spawned some wild formal logic tism though.

>>21881256
We could probably power the London electrical grid off of the rotation of Bertrand Russell's grave if he knew the Principia is basically just a historical curiosity while The Science of Logic gets lots of active attention.

>>21881264
The objective logic of the dialectical isn't subject to incompleteness or undefinability. Axioms are for suckers.

>>21879146
A Caliban...

https://www.bitchute.com/video/8iKFVdmjYq2N/

>>21880769
He's inspired less rigorous schizophrenia as well though.

>>21880708
If they're so intelligent they will cut through the nonsense and extract the insights. Hegel was known from the very beginning of his lecturing to be a terrible presenter, both in writing and speech. I think it even was Goethe who suggested to him to take rhetoric lessons. No one would argue that clarity was his strong suit. But if those brilliant young minds turn schizophrenic from it they had it coming anyway, some other infinite logic game would have activated their tism.

>>21879146
Φ 20. The truth is the whole. The whole, however, is merely the essential nature reaching its completeness through the process of its own development. Of the Absolute it must be said that it is essentially a result, that only at the end is it what it is in very truth; and just in that consists its nature, which is to be actual, subject, or self-becoming, self-development. Should it appear contradictory to say that the Absolute has to be conceived essentially as a result, a little consideration will set this appearance of contradiction in its true light. The beginning, the principle, or the Absolute, as at first or immediately expressed, is merely the universal. If we say “all animals”, that does not pass for zoology; for the same reason we see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them; and only mere words like these, in point of fact, express intuition as the immediate. Whatever is more than a word like that, even the mere transition to a proposition, is a form of mediation, contains a process towards another state from which we must return once more. It is this process of mediation, however, that is rejected with horror, as if absolute knowledge were being surrendered when more is made of mediation than merely the assertion that it is nothing absolute, and does not exist in the Absolute.

Φ 21. This horrified rejection of mediation, however, arises as a fact from want of acquaintance with its nature, and with the nature of absolute knowledge itself. For mediating is nothing but self-identity working itself out through an active self-directed process; or, in other words, it is reflection into self, the aspect in which the ego is for itself, objective to itself. It is pure negativity, or, reduced to its utmost abstraction, the process of bare and simple becoming. The ego, or becoming in general, this process of mediating, is, because of its being simple, just immediacy coming to be, and is immediacy itself. We misconceive therefore the nature of reason if we exclude reflection or mediation from ultimate truth., and do not take it to be a positive moment of the Absolute. It is reflection which constitutes truth the final result, and yet at the same time does away with the contrast between result and the process of arriving at it. For this process is likewise simple, and therefore not distinct from the form of truth, which consists in appearing as simple in the result; it is indeed just this restoration and return to simplicity. While the embryo is certainly, in itself, implicitly a human being, it is not so explicitly, it is not by itself a human being (für sich); man is explicitly man only in the form of developed and cultivated reason, which has made itself to be what it is implicitly. Its actual reality is first found here.

>>21881320
But this result arrived at is itself simple immediacy; for it is self conscious freedom, which is at one with itself, and has not set aside the opposition it involves and left it there, but has made its account with it and become reconciled to it.

Φ 22. What has been said may also be expressed by saying that reason is purposive activity. The exaltation of so-called nature at the expense of thought misconceived, and more especially the rejection of external purposiveness, have brought the idea of purpose in general into disrepute. All the same, in the sense in which Aristotle, too, characterises nature as purposive activity, purpose is the immediate, the undisturbed, the unmoved which is self-moving; as such it is subject. Its power of moving, taken abstractly, is its existence for itself, or pure negativity. The result is the same as the beginning solely because the beginning is purpose. Stated otherwise, what is actual and concrete is the same as its inner principle or notion simply because the immediate qua purpose contains within it the self or pure actuality. The realised purpose, or concrete actuality, is movement and development unfolded. But this very unrest is the self; and it is one and the same with that immediacy and simplicity characteristic of the beginning just for the reason that it is the result, and has returned upon itself – while this latter again is just the self, and the self is self-referring and self-relating identity and simplicity.

Φ 23. The need to think of the Absolute as subject, has led men to make use of statements like “God is the eternal”, the “moral order of the world”, or “love”, etc. In such propositions the truth is just barely stated to be Subject, but not set forth as the process of reflectively mediating itself with itself. In a proposition of that kind we begin with the word God. By itself this is a meaningless sound, a mere name; the predicate says afterwards what it is, gives it content and meaning: the empty beginning becomes real knowledge only when we thus get to the end of the statement. So far as that goes, why not speak alone of the eternal, of the moral order of the world, etc., or, like the ancients, of pure conceptions such as being, the one, etc., i.e. of what gives the meaning without adding the meaningless sound at all? But this word just indicates that it is not a being or essence or universal in general that is put forward, but something reflected into self, a subject. Yet at the same time this acceptance of the Absolute as Subject is merely anticipated, not really affirmed. The subject is taken to be a fixed point, and to it as their support the predicates are attached, by a process falling within the individual knowing about it, but not looked upon as belonging to the point of attachment itself; only by such a process, however, could the content be presented as subject.

>>21881326
Constituted as it is, this process cannot belong to the subject; but when that point of support is fixed to start with, this process cannot be otherwise constituted, it can only be external. The anticipation that the Absolute is subject is therefore not merely not the realisation of this conception; it even makes realisation impossible. For it makes out the notion to be a static point, while its actual reality is self-movement, self-activity.

Φ 24. Among the many consequences that follow from what has been said, it is of importance to emphasise this, that knowledge is only real and can only be set forth fully in the form of science, in the form of system; and further, that a so-called fundamental proposition or first principle of philosophy, even if it is true, is yet none the less false just because and in so far as it is merely a fundamental proposition, merely a first principle. It is for that reason easily refuted. The refutation consists in bringing out its defective character, and it is defective because it is merely the universal, merely a principle, the beginning.If the refutation is complete and thorough, it is derived and developed from the nature of the principle itself, and not accomplished by bringing in from elsewhere other counter assurances and chance fancies. It would be strictly the development of the principle, and thus the completion of its deficiency, were it not that it misunderstands its own purport by taking account solely of the negative aspect of what it seeks to do, and is not conscious of the positive character of its process and result. The really positive working out of the beginning is at the same time just as much the very reverse, it is a negative attitude towards the principle we start from, negative, that is to say, of its one-sided form, which consists in being primarily immediate, a mere purpose. It may therefore be regarded as a refutation of what constitutes the basis of the system; but more correctly it should be looked at as a demonstration that the basis or principle of the system is in point of fact merely its beginning.

>>21879318
It's a gotcha because it outs him as a complete charlatan trickster. Though I could mention many more cases from his work.

>>21881314
>Generate nonsensical text
>"Bruh you are stupid if you won't study it for half a decade to find the hidden insights"

>>21879146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rzMkvf1Ess

>>21879146
Not a goddamned thing.

>>21881579
lmao. That's just what i meant, you clearly have neither read Hegels actual text nor bothered to do 5 mins of googling on this one factoid that you heard about Hegel and repeat like a retard.

The planet story concerned this law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law
A purely empirical rule (that has no proper theoretical derivation TO THIS DAY) that suggested there should be heavenly bodies in certain places that fit the number sequence nicely.
Hegel in his dissertation criticized this kind of argument for relying on mathematical aesthetics. Essentially the same kind of critique is mounted today against string theory for insisting that the math is too good to be untrue. He made no statement about whether there is or isn't a planet. Hegel concluded by ironically taking a number sequence from Plato's Timaeus that would "prove" that there can't be a planet IF you take the argument by mathematical aesthetics as legitimate. The point was to show that you can "prove" anything by it.
Somehow a bunch of stemcels parsed all that as Hegel trying to meddle with astronomical facts and proliferated the story of the dumb charlatan philosopher who can't into the scientific method so no soientist would have to bother actually reading him.

>>21879146
Not shit BITCH

>>21881587
Not Hegel's fault if some brainlets need half a decade to find them, they are there regardless.

>>21879146
He knew how to appeal to an overeducated delicate demographic.

>>21882834
Name one (1)

Still waiting

Ah well

>>21882858
>>21882926
lmao you think this is some kind of chatroom or that people spend their days refreshing 4chan threads?
The very fact that you demand an insight to be "named" as some neat little tidbit proves you're not really fit to read complex texts.
I could go depth about how Hegel finds a basic duality from which the informational universe can be constructed and how he investigates the activity of conscioussness from first principles which indeed turn out to determine all forms of thinking, but I feel the effort would be lost in you.

>>21882964
You're the perfect example of a pseud actually, but I'm sure you're very impressed with yourself. I'm not interested in watching you gish gallop, any actual truth could be conveyed in brief and only needs to be systematically outlined later for the sake of rigor. But you can't give me anything like that because you're a pseud reading a pseud and confusing big words for intelligence. Rest assured there is nothing in the world you could tell me or any otherr intelligent person that would be "lost" on us, this is purely projection because you yourself get lost in your own mumbo jumbo and flatter yourself by thinking if you're so intelligent, surely the audience must be doing twice as bad. In reality I understand what you're trying to say better than you do and can't even put into words how embarassing you are.
>If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, then you don't understand it yourself.

>>21882926
>>21882964
Still waiting btw, even after your post.

>>21883048
>goes to lecture on algebraic topology
>ummm mr professor can you give me the gist in, like, bullet points? And plain english plz, none of that fag talk
>hurr durr all those big words sound like schizo shit, think you're intelligent or sumthin?!
That's (You).

Also nice feynman quote you picked up there, too bad you don't know the other part of the story where he confessed he couldn't do a freshman lecture on why the fermi-dirac distribution applies to half-integer spin particles when challenged to and had to agree things ain't always that simple. You don't know it because you don't read

>>21883101
>Also nice feynman quote you picked up there, too bad you don't know the other part of the story... You don't know it because you don't read
Uh huh. So actually it's an Einstein quote.
Does this revelation induce an epiphany?

Still waiting btw

MarxXHegel

>>21883117
>actually it's an Einstein quote
Nope, it's attributed to Einstein by brainlets who attribute every neat-sounding physics/math-related quote to Einstein.
Also you don't seem to know what epiphany means. Try less recital of cliched phrases and more thinking

>>21883140
Wow, you're even stupider than I thought. Genuinely disappointing, wanted to have a back and forth with a Hegeltard and just got a fucking out and out retard instead.

So this guy aside, IS THERE NOBODY ELSE? >>21882858

>>21883148
No. See >>21881842

Feynman was addicted to sex.

>>21883159
Wow he‘s just like me

>>21883156
Speaking of Einstein, did you know he was Schoppy respecter?
People say he could readily be found poring over Schpenhauer in his leisure hours

>>21883148
oh shit you destroyed me there kid. But at least now it's clear why you're so desperate for the version for 6-year olds

>>21883181
Yep

>>21881833
This. The natural sciences, particularly physics, has had a huge problem with a preference for aesthetic and elegant solutions to problems. This is how the chaos theory revolution ended up waiting until the dawn of the digital era despite the fact that people knew about chaos centuries earlier.

Even extremely simple differential equations can produce chaos. Previously, these solutions were just ignored as noise and only stable solutions that were easily calculated given consideration.

This meant that things like turbulence and phase transitions were poorly understood. Even today, economics still looks at the "invisible hand" as a source of "magic," in many cases instead of being recognized as just another instance of complexity, feedback loops, informational signaling, and emergence.

Hegel was in many ways and early progenitor of complexity studies and information theory. Through his influence on Pierce he had a huge influence on information theory and the sciences in general via Pierce's epistemological innovations.

Although most people without graduate level education in the natural sciences are unaware of it, there has been a major paradigm shift since the days of 19th century reductive corpuscularism, (i.e. everything can be explained in terms of little balls of stuff interacting). Information theory and complexity studies have remade advanced topics across the sciences. Here, Hegel was a huge influence.

He was an important early commentator on Adam Smith and proposed Keynesianism a century before Keynes. He also recognized similar organic equilibrium states in other human institutions aside from markets, an insight that would shape the social sciences a century and a half after he wrote.

In many ways, the huge influence on Hegel on the philosophy of science is still being felt. First it was felt in that logical positivism and all it entailed was developed as a reaction against Hegel. Now it is being felt as a renaissance of Hegelian ideas in the sciences.

Nancy Cartwright's point that Newton's Laws are just idealizations that fall apart when three bodies are introduced, and what this means for concepts as laws, is also lurking in Hegel.

He was a monumental thinker. From the 1920s-2000s he became more and more influential only in political science/phil, but now he has come back as an influence in the natural sciences and mathematics, places he had huge amounts of influence end prior to the reaction led against him.

>>21883363
I would go as far as to make this controversial claim: there have only been four S tier philosophers and they have come in pairs, Plato and Aristotle, and Kant and Hegel. Of these two, the most influential and inventive are the latter, Aristotle and Hegel.

>>21883372
And notably, no two men have so fully dominated all of philosophy for a period than Aristotle during scholasticism and Hegel in the middle to late 19th century.

>>21883375
>and Hegel in the middle to late 19th century.
I think you meant 19th and 20th centuries.

>>21883382
I suppose that's true if you consider how much of early 20th century philosophy was a direct response to Hegel, it's just that it was hostile to him.

Kind of hilarious they did all that work to banish Hegel and "metaphysics," and then from the 50s on we had Neo-Marxist interpreters who taught everyone that Hegel never wrote about metaphysics or religion lol.

>>21883363
Based effortpost. It's astounding what levels of abstraction he reached within the limits of his time, honestly it's surprising that his infamous obscurity wasn't even worse, that he found words for it at all.
I once read a line in Algernon Blackwoods autobiography, something like
>I was convinced that Hegel's philosophy was inspired by a profound mystical experience.
There might be something to it

>>21883591
If not his own mystical experience, he was nonetheless hugely influenced by Jacob Boehme's mystical revelation.

Boehme was a extremely interesting person. He was a shoe maker in the Kingdom of Bohemia in the years leading up to the cataclysm of the Thirty Years War (and it was a cataclysm, the war killed 2.5 times as much of the German population as both World Wars combined).

He his mystical experience in 1610. He didn't go out and start amassing a following. Instead, a guy who wouldn't have been expected to be literate, let alone a scholar, embarked on 12 years of intensive study of the sciences and philosophy of the time, only setting down his revelation over a decade later. What is crazy is that we have documents showing he wrote about the revelation far earlier, but spent all that time trying to figure out how to express it.

The work is extremely difficult, using a lot of esoteric systems to get core ideas across. But at its core, it is a system of self organization. It's a look at how complexity can emerge from the simple existence of dialectically opposed opposites, the same way that an unfathomable number of mathematical relationships can be demonstrated as necessary from a proof of one object, which in turn implies another.

Pic related is a Romanian theoretical physicists take on Boehme, putting him up with Copernicus as an important figure in the development of modern science.

Of course, the mathematics of self organization, the relationship between the rise of complex life on Earth and the universal entropy gradient, etc. would all need centuries of empirical findings and developments in mathematics to bear fruit, but it's still amazing how the core revelation is very much indeed a revelation of our apparent world and its inner workings.

Hegel helped to rationalize a lot of these insights. I think the next step that needs to be taken is to translate a lot of what Hegel said into the language of modern empiricism. Right now, it all seems to haunted by "spooky metaphysics," but I actually think a great deal of Hegel can be understood through the lens of modern science, while remaining agnostic as to whether his metaphysics is plausible or not.

The guy has, arguably, the best solution to the subjective / objective divide. He also slashes through the is/ought problem within the first few pages of the Philosophy of Right, although again, he was difficult to follow there for the complexity of the argument. These are probably the two biggest challenges in philosophy, and it is a shame people turned away from a guy who so abely dealt with both.

>>21883886
Interesting, thanks for the rec.

I very much agree with the points about modern science, I think fundamental physics will/is about to make serious advances when certain concepts which retain a woo factor, like observer, measurement, collapse, the idea of particles etc, are reworked in a much more general info-theoretic frame. It feels like, for however abstract theoretical physics and math is today, we still haven't broken through a certain threshold of abstraction that will make things truly clear. Hegels conceptual machinery seems to provide just the right toolset for this, at least as much as one could wish for in the language of the early 19th century. As you say, it needs to be translated.

Any opinion on his philosophy of history? Very insightful too, I would say, though certainly debatable. Funny how there's a Fukuyama revival going on, who essentially updated and americanized it.
Btw, to any Hegel beginners who might be lurking, the lectures on the philosophy of history are refreshingly readable and witty and not a bad place to start.

He knew that there was a fundamental paradox at the heart of being. Namely that change somehow happens without violating logic. How can A=A if things change?

>>21883363
>Although most people without graduate level education in the natural sciences are unaware of it, there has been a major paradigm shift since the days of 19th century reductive corpuscularism, (i.e. everything can be explained in terms of little balls of stuff interacting)
How do I break out of this perspective? How exactly does information theory overcome this mentality? There's plenty of chaos in "little balls of stuff interacting" (e.g. stochastics).

>>21883372
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Aquinas
>Goethe
>Kant
>Hegel
>Nietzsche
>Peirce
>Heidegger
>Laozi
All of the above are S-tier if you make use of all of them syntopically.

>>21879146
he was a schizophrenic

>>21884168
What's the pic from?

>>21884412
Sid Meier's Pirates!

>>21884412
this has to be bait

Åh, jag seglar iväg, min egen sanna kärlek
Jag seglar iväg på morgonen
Finns det något jag kan skicka dig från andra sidan havet?
Från platsen där jag kommer att landa?
Det finns inget du kan skicka till mig, min egen sanna kärlek
Det finns inget jag vill äga
Bär dig bara tillbaka till mig oförstörd
Från andra sidan det ensamma havet
Åh, men jag tänkte bara att du kanske vill ha något fint
Kanske silver eller gyllene
Antingen från bergen i Madrid
Eller från Barcelonas kust
Om jag hade den mörkaste nattens stjärnor
Och diamanterna från det djupaste havet
Jag skulle överge dem alla för din söta kyss
Det är allt jag vill äga
Åh, jag kan vara borta för länge sedan
Och det är bara det att jag frågar
Finns det något jag kan skicka till dig för att minnas mig med?
För att din tid ska gå lättare?
Hur kan, hur kan du fråga mig igen?
Tja, det ger mig bara sorg
Åh, samma sak som jag skulle vilja ha idag
Jag skulle vilja igen imorgon
Åh, jag fick ett brev en ensam dag
Det var från hans skepp som seglade
Att säga, jag vet inte när jag kommer tillbaka igen
Det beror på hur jag mår
Om du, min älskade, måste tänka bort det
Jag är säker på att ditt sinne rör sig
Jag är säker på att dina tankar inte är med mig
Men med landet dit du ska
Så akta dig, akta dig för västanvinden
Akta dig för stormigt väder
Och ja, det finns något du kan skicka tillbaka till mig
Spanska stövlar av spanskt läder

>>21884536
fel tråd?

>>21883363
>Nancy Cartwright's point that Newton's Laws are just idealizations that fall apart when three bodies are introduced, and what this means for concepts as laws, is also lurking in Hegel.
What do you mean by "Newton's laws fall apart"? As in, the three laws of motion stop making sense? Or that it's too difficult to calculate the solutions to the resulting systems, especially when compared to the tidy solutions of two body systems? I wonder if Cartwright is rejecting Newton with a much more radical angle.

>>21883363
>>21883886
As someone who could not afford, in both time and money, a formal education in philosophy. Do you have any recs for secondary material on Hegel that could be used as a parallel resource to consult while reading the phenomenology?

>>21879146
looks like he knows who farted

>>21883372
>>21884199
There is no easier way to spot a pseud than when they don't rate Schopenhauer.
>syntopically
Whoa... lmfao

>>21883363
Nancy Cartwright? Bart Simpson's voice actor is a physicist?

>>21885001
Schopenhauer is baby's first doomer philosopher. he didn't even understand Kant

didn't Hegel debunk calculus?

>>21885094
There's nothing wrong with that quote

>>21883363
>>21881833
You can read anything into Hegel and save him from any criticism because of his vagueness. For instance, you talk about Hegel's supposedly massive influence on Peirce, even though Peirce had an extreme antipathy for Hegel (says so in his correspondence with Welby) and disliked him nearly as much as Schopenhauer.

>>21883101
If you knew anything about algebraic topology you would know that it is actually possible to explain a result from algebraic topology to a normal person.

But you're a typical pseud who just throws around big words without knowing anything about them. Maybe next post you can reference quantum physics too.

>>21885131
Ok, explain what a chain complex is in a few snappy paragraphs requiring only high school math.

>>21885121
It was a love-hate relationship for Peirce, who often vacillated between dramatic hyperbole and sober, charitable critique. Anyway, the influence of German idealism on Peirce is not just unmistakable, it's frankly impossible to have Peirce without Kant, Hegel, and Schelling.

>>21885121
The funny thing about the quotes you posted is that Peirce also criticized the Titius-Bode Law in a lecture too, for basically the same reason.

>>21885165
I'll give a sketch from which you can fill in the details for what you want.
Easy to explain commutativity to a highschooler
Explain groups via intuitive connection to symmetry
Explain homomorphisms via some notion of it preserving the "structure" of the group, with an example or two with some easy to visualize groups like d8 or cyclic groups
Composition of maps they'll know, zero map they'll know
Then throw all the elements together to cook up your definition

But of course you'll now make a thousand dishonest cop-out nitpicks because that's the rhetorical strategy pseuds go for in these types of situations.

>>21885206
>this shit mad hard to think about senpai on God

>>21885176
It's impossible to have Peirce without Kant (studying critique for 3 hrs a day for 2 years etc. etc.), but not Schelling and Hegel. I don't even know if I've heard Peirce mention Schelling once, at least from what I can recall, and he claimed to be an amateur when it came to Hegel, so he must've not paid much attention to him. But this is a critical point at least for the validity of your argument, because it basically hinges on Hegel's being extremely influential to Peirce.

>>21883363
>(i.e. everything can be explained in terms of little balls of stuff interacting)
Atomists were a mistake

>>21883591
>I was convinced that Hegel's philosophy was inspired by a profound mystical experience.
Boehme

>>21884692
Lurk the list threads in the archives, there'll be a Hegel secondary lit one in there

>>21885216
deadass fr no cap

>>21885183
>He was being ironic bro!

>>21885217
>I don't even know if I've heard Peirce mention Schelling once, at least from what I can recall
Considering that Peirce was intrigued by Schelling's Naturphilosophy, often praised his work as having a similar bent to his own, and even called himself "a Schellingian of some stripe", I think it's time that you read more Peirce. He's all over the place.

>>21885217
>he claimed to be an amateur when it came to Hegel
I don't think there's any sane person who's willing to claim that they're an expert on Hegel.

>>21879146
Hegel was a Hermeticist and con artist. He performed the greatest magic trick in history which was to get the future to take him seriously.

what disgusts me about Hegel is the absurd 'will to truth' asceticism that would motivate one to even bother with deciphering his works. It demonstrates a clear nihilistic aspect, like a self-defeatism.
Is it posturing? The effortpost anon above did recieve some praise, but that is a shallow vanity.
Goal orientation? What possible outcome could one hope to achieve?
It reeks of death to me.

there is no truth in any atheist works, because atheists took power by saying there is no truth

>>21884417
>>21884418
It's not. Is it Pirates of the Caribbean or something?

>>21884692
Read Kant, Heraclitus and Parmenides (the dialogue, too) first. The latter two are easy and have no other requisite readings (though it's preferred); the first requires the entirety of the western philosophical canon. If you're not willing to read that, just try Berkeley > Hume. Read something explaining the nature and permutations in the development of Aristotlean 'Substance', both as first made and later thought of, in relation to his subject predicate logic. This is the main key to understand.

Hegel himself honestly, imo, stands quite alone, apart from Kant, that is. Of course the methods he uses, whilst novel, aren't really transgressive, let alone subversive, and can be understood with far greater ease by one who's naturally assimilated the methods philosophers use in metaphysical matter by actually reading them.

I wouldn't actually advise you do this, though. Hegel is great, but if you just want to read because 'ZOMG HEGEL', it's better just to read some other simpler writers. You'll both be better educated than with a poor understanding of Hegel, and, more importantly, be infinitely more sufferable.

>>21884692
Use LibGen.

Pinkard's Hegel's Naturalism is quite good as an introduction. It is very easy to follow but it is deflationary in that it tries to bracket off and contain what Hegel is doing metaphysically.

I would start there.

Dorrien's Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit is a great background on those who came around Hegel and Hegel himself as well, also a good place to start.

Honneth's Freedom's Right is a good place to start on an easy to understand version of Hegel's political philosophy, although again it is quite deflationary.

>>21885058
There is a different person with the same name who is one of the most famous living American philosophers (at least in philosophy of science). I have to imagine she is mostly retired by now, but maybe not, Henry Kissinger is still putting out books in his 90s.

>>21884191
First, you need to recognize that such a view is totally dead in physics, although some minority beliefs that strive to replace it so survive.

Many physicists hold that fields are more basic than particles- that, at a fundemental level, the part (wave/particle) is only explainable in terms of the whole (the field). This is the opposite of corpuscular reduction, where all objects can be fully described by their most fundemental parts. Nothing does not exist. Void has energy, it is seething with virtual particles and activity. There is not "nothing and particles" interacting in the nothing. Wilzek's the Lightness of Being is good here and for an intro on quantum chromodynamics, but not where I would start. Nothing: A Very Brief Introduction is good too.

I've seen physics articles call particles the shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave, fields the shadow puppets, and quantum information, grounded in category theoretic modeling, the actual forms.

Information isn't reducible because it is essentially relational, the difference that makes a difference. Floridi's Philosophy of Information has a pretty good proof in Ch. 14 that such basic difference is fundemental to any toy universe, e.g. even a 2D universe needs points that differ from each other or else it becomes contradictory.

When I touch a cup of coffee and feel it is still warm and know someone must have made it recently, it is differences between the entropy, an emergent phenomena, of two systems that gives me that information. Such information doesn't exist as the sum total of all the balls in the coffee cup; the information comes from the lack of thermodynamic equilibrium.


First, I'd recommend Information and the Nature of Reality, an anthology lead by Paul Davies. It's cheap for an academic book but also on LibGen.

Read the first few essays on physics. The Biology stuff is good too, but Deacon's "Towards a Science of Biosemiotics," is more foundational than the essay submitted for this book


I would also recommend the book "What is Real?" as a nice little primer on quantum foundations. It goes a little overboard on the historical sick moves of the Copenhagen orthodoxy camp, and it mostly ignores decoherence and "It From Bit," but overall it is a highly accessible introduction to foundations.


Springer Frontiers has threw very different books worth taking a look at here: Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information, Particle Metaphysics, and What is Fundemental.

I made this list in the pic for a different question but it has a lot of the same material.

>>21886844
Pirates of the Caribbean 2. In the movie he says “The Bible” rather than Hegel.

>>21887045
For the very basics, The Great Courses class on Information Theory is excellent. You can get it with a trial on Wonderium or in audio as a trial from Audible. A rotating selection of course is free on Audible every month too.

From a philosophical perspective, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia articles on reduction, the arrow of time, and philosophy of biology. These contain a good explanation of why reduction is no longer considered possible by a majority, and the arguments are quite good. So, while undergrad biology is still often taught as if it is reducible to chemistry, majority of opinion for people who work closely on this don't think this is the case. In part, this is due to information theoretic explanations of natural selection and the relational nature of such information.

You see the same thing in philosophy of mind. Computationalism is the biggest theory in physicalist theory of mind. However, here, the information is considered fundemental. That is, if you could make a model that worked just like a brain out of pipes and steam valves, the model should "be" the mind that was exactly copied, even if the substrate is entirely different (see also the China Brain thought experiment).

Hoffman's The Case Against Reality comes at reduction from a different angle, undermining physicalism using the tools of cognitive science. Hoffman proports to show that the mainstream view is proven highly unlikely by the tools of the sciences. Not totally convincing, but worth a read.

Nagel's Mind and Cosmos is another good challenge to reduction based philosophy more than the sciences.

Also check out the Stanford Encyclopedia article on physicalism. That's a tough article, but it shows some of the deep problems in the conventional view that show up upon close inspection.

The reason corpuscularism lives on is because physics has no consensus explanation of itself. There are at least 8 major theories in foundations and not one has majority support. So we just keep the old explanation alive as "good enough."

>>21885121
>Perhaps surprisingly, Peirce ultimately came to regard his views as even closer to those of the absolute idealists Schelling and Hegel than to those of Kant. For example: “I am a Schellingian of some stripe,” he wrote (CP, 6.605; see also CP, 6. 102). By 1892 Peirce wrote: “My philosophy resuscitates Hegel, though in a strange costume” (CP, 1.42). Again, about 1905, he wrote: “The truth is that pragmaticism is closely allied to the Hegelian absolute idealism, from which, however, it is sundered by its vigorous denial that the third category … suffices to make the world ….” (CP, 5.436). Peirce’s assimilating his late philosophy to that of the absolute idealists, however, is not quite as straightforwardly understandable as his finding his views similar to Kant’s: his explicitly given reasons for the assimilation are not always easy to understand. Here they will be touched upon only very briefly; they obviously require a great deal of interpretation and elaboration.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html

Pierce specifically mentions basing quite a bit of his system on Hegel, particularly the development of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness and the tripartite semiotic triangle.

Pierce's corpus mentions Hegel 227 times, about once every 10 pages.

>>21883363
>Information theory and complexity studies have remade advanced topics across the sciences. Here, Hegel was a huge influence.
Hegel has no bearing on any science wtf lol

>>21887058>>21887045>>21883363>>21883591

this is a lot of giberrish. Nowadays fields and particles are exactly the same and all those crappy books are useless for physics. People who want to learn physics learn it with actual physics book.

>>21879146
He didn't know a lot, but he suspected several things !

>>21887135
The case had Spirit written all over it, but how would he convince the commissioner?

>>21887053
Thanks.

>>21887082
>Physics is what is in my undergrad textbook.
>No, a book on physics by a Nobel laureate in physics is just gibberish. Neither is an anthology full of peer reviewed physics papers by physicists.

>>21887195
kek

>>21879146
>What did he know?

Learn french and find out

>>21879146
>sometimes there is conflict
>this usually results in a state after the conflict where some things are the same and some have changed
>I'll call this "Aufhebung" and pretend it is obscure and arcane and mystifying
>basically conflict resol.. excuse me, AUFHEBUNG is what drives history forward
>that's why you can observe empirically that some stuff changes and some stuff remains the same, proving me right
Bravo Hegel. Bravo.

>>21881335
>>21881326
>>21881320
I have been read Hegel and secondary literature about Hegel for the past few months and this is an accurate introduction to his thought. Confused anons please read.

>>21882858
One great insight Hegel had is destabilize Kant's
dichotomy of appearance and thing-in-itself. In Kant's system, the division between these two is posed as immovable, or at least implied to be so. Hegel demonstrates in the Phenomenology of Spirit that the process of knowledge is a continual "pushing back" of the thing-in-itself, and that the way we actually acquire knowledge is comparing our knowledge of the object to our own criteria of what we believe the object should be encompassed by. Thus we continually create an intuition of a "thing in itself", learn more about the object until it becomes a "thing in itself for us" and then create a new "thing in itself" and so on and so on. While this doesn't break down the dichotomy, it is a necessary addition which frees our knowledge from much of the subjectivity and solipsism of Kant.

I've tried to make it as clear as possible, but most of Hegel's ideas do take a good few sentences to explain.

>>21884199
No Nagarjuna? No Sankara?

>>21884692
Charles Taylor's Hegel is a helpful secondary read. And I would also recommend Gregory Sadler's "Half Hour Hegel" lecture series on youtube.

>>21887370
Not surprising since it's literally from the introduction to phenomenology of spirit

>>21887396
Do you mean the preface? The introduction only talks about the dialectic process of the shapes of consciousness.

>>21887457
Yeah you're right, preface

The link of Hegel to quantum information that scienceanon
>>21881833
>>21883363
has posted throughout this thread is pure equivocation. Hegel and his philosophy had no bearing on the development of theories like quantum fields, hawking radiation, the holographic universe or the no-hair theorm/quantum information paradox. All of these discoveries, theories, and conjectures occured through a progressive process of science.
Anon's claims that there is some sort of Hegelian influence is only a comparison.
It's curious, but only that.

>>21884577
The Hegelian missed the mark here. And this makes me question the scientific understanding of whoever this Nancy Cartwright is.

How can Newton's Laws "fall apart" when solving the three body problem if the problem is solved under Newtonian paradigms? This is complete nonsense.

Further, the three body problem does have a solution and the system is still deterministic. Its just that the solution cannot be a closed form one.

>>21887662
>How can Newton's Laws "fall apart" when solving the three body problem if the problem is solved under Newtonian paradigms?
That's what I was thinking too. It's trivial to say that Newton's MO—which is to describe phenomena with mathematics, ignoring the underlying "occult" causes (I posit no hypotheses) while conferring the discoveries with a veneer of "Platonic", "geometrical" perfection (remember, geometry was "in" back then)—failed when it came to more complex systems of bodies. We get the allure, and we get the failure. It's a lot more interesting to say that these things had to do with a breakdown of THE capital-L Laws of motion that everybody learns in high school physics. Now we're talking about potentially reality-shattering philosophical implications. But that wasn't really implied, was it?

>>21887662
>>21887730
I believe the problem we are observing here is fundamental to Hegelianism itself. As a theory that claims universality, its proponents experience a maximum bias, that warps all perceptions and observations into the framework of the ideology.

>>21879146
He knew that idiots would have endless discussions about what he wrote for a long time into the future.

>>21885314
Glad you've discovered Nietzsche. Now what if I told you that the whole argument from the Genealogy of Morals is already contained (albeit in less appealing form) in about 12 pages of the "Self-Consciousness" chapter from the Phenomenology?

>>21879146
He knew how to betray at the Red Mountain.

>>21887928
I'd say you're a lying liar

>>21885314
The Truth is the coming into being of the Absolute. Identity is process.

Truth is absolutely essential to survival. From an information theoretic perspective, the genome is just a one-way semipermeable membrane that lets information about the enviornment in but not out. It's the essence of life, not death.

The global tendency towards increasing entropy is essential for the natural selection and thus emergence of self-organizing far-from-equlibrium systems (i.e. life, as commonly defined, in most cases, non-living examples notwithstanding). Order sublating chaos.

Being coming to know itself as self, being encoding itself in ever higher levels of emergence in a sort of fractal recurrence, in genomes, neuronal networks, language, etc. is the very essence of life and survival.

To participate in this is to participate in the birth of God.

Your attitude is simply parochial. You won't obtain the Absolute living that way.

>>21887928
Why would I care about that? The truth of the matter is neither yours nor mine nor Nietzsche's nor Hegel's.
Truth isn't a game to be played or won.

>>21888097
You haven't birthed a god, you are merely engulfed in the fumes of His corpse. You have given yourself unto the dragon. Your eyes are shimmering with that false light.
There is nothing new you have made; only a new mode to nothing.

>>21887659
Whoa! You mean Hegel wasn't a physicist working in quantum mechanics in 1806? Thanks for clearing that up Anon.

The posts you are referencing don't mention quantum anything. The only references to "quantum" in the thread are totally ancillary to the topic of Hegel.

I have to assume that what you were reading flew completely over your head and that it offended your sensibilities. "If I can't understand something, it must be pseudery!" This in turn led you to make some post about how Hegel wasn't a quantum physicist, something no one said, and even to list the topics from the "see also" section of the Wikipedia article on QM, I guess to somehow bolster your credentials as a "knower of things."

>>21888132
Writing like Nietzsche doesn't make you deep bro. The aphoristic style needs to be paired with some sort of content, not just "other people wrong and huffing the copium, me smart and based."

>>21888311
>other people wrong and huffing the copium, me smart and based.
But you are and I am!

>>21888097
Imagine believing this progressivist drivel lmao

>>21888358
Either you accept that progress for at least some social institutions is possible or you are forced into having to defend the position that science, a human social institutions, has not progressed. This seems, prima facie unreasonable, since people in developed countries no longer have to worry about where there next meal will come from or if the harvest is good, can travel overland at 75 MPH whenever they feel like it, and routinely fly through the air to get to places, all while being able to communicate with anyone around the globe with a device in their pocket. It certainly seems like man's understanding of nature has improved over time.

Complexity is hard to define, but it's also hard to deny the evolution has produced organisms of growing complexity over time, and that this seems like a rational, likely outcome given the logic of evolutionary game theory.

>>21888311
I guess it is true that Hegelian = autistic lmao
maybe you should immerse yourself in Nietzsche like you did for your fag pseudo-christ Hegel.
who knows, you might even discovered the Nietzsche's works had manifested themselves through the unfolding of the geist, as the main force behind the Symbian machine. At least then you'd have something to fuck yourself with

nigger.

>>21888097
>To participate in this is to participate in the birth of God.

Absolute-ly based. Once I had an LSD trip after being sleep deprived for 2 days (no it's not an ironic post) and saw the very same mystical vision, saw the dialectic working on every thing, thought, pattern, everything being expressed through everything else, everything birthing it's negation and then, in conflict, ascending to something new that again births its negation. Whole cosmic civilizations rising and falling, progressively filling the cosmos with thought until - that's what it felt like - every point would be connected to every other and any difference between Logos and matter would cease to exist. In fact that was probably the most profound aspect, when eveything material seemed to naturally turn into language and vice versa, both revealing themselves to be dancing forms of one substance we might as well call information.
I hadn't even read any Hegel back then but soon developed an interest, and wasn't too surprised that Hegelians tend to treat it as almost sacred knowledge.

>>21888401
Progress is an inherently relative concept. It is also vague, arbitrary, subjective.
Would you be a slave to your own conceptions, or might you own your conceptions?

>>21887347
Absolutely retarded and simplistic view of Aufhebung. It is not just an empirically observable phenomenon but, in Hegel's view, innate to the construction of concepts which themselves are immanent in the natural world. Read the first three chapters of the Phenomenology of Spirit and you'll see what I mean. Sense-Certainty, Perception, and Understanding are all shown to be points on a dialectical path toward Absolute Knowing. On a larger level, the dialectic is situated in Hegel's system as a way to show that all concepts negate each other until you reach the Absolute which is a fundamental self-subsistent reality. But when looking at the Absolute, you also find that it must be embodied in particular beings and concepts in order to be fully realized. This ascending and descending trajectory is the circular movement attributed to Hegel's system, and his dialect is more than just a heuristic for looking at history. Perhaps Marx's interpretation of Hegel has confused you.

>>21888708
lmao

>it's all about recognition bro
I guess maybe if you're a narcissist? was Hegel a a narcissist and was projecting onto everybody else? is the West founded on the schizo ramblings of a narcissist? would explain a lot

>>21888850
In reality, nothing would seem more narcissistic than someone pretending he does not care about recognition AT ALL.

>>21888533
That's why Hegel felt the need to come up with a notion of progress that is precise and objective.

>>21887347
Hegel's dialectic is fundamentally about self-othering, mediation, reflexivity, recognotion etc.
Leaving out all the main ingredients will obviously yield an empty concept.

>>21888865
It's nothing more than an imposition.

>>21888973
Not at all.

>>21889244
digits for the christcuck

He's essentially the most influential thinker on modern political thought today. Marxism, Fascism, the French philosophers via Kojeve's influence on Foucault, Derrida, etc.
Fukuyama's end of history theory is based on Hegel and Kojeve
Giovanni Gentile was a Hegelian scholar and wrote the Doctrine of Fascism
Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School was a Hegelian, as was Max Stirner
Marx was one of the Young Hegelians. Marx agreed with Hegel that history was a process of dialectical development, driven by the contradictions between human needs and material conditions. However, he rejected Hegel’s idealism, which saw history as a struggle of a rational spirit or "Geist", and replaced it with a materialist perspective, which saw historical events driven by class struggle and economic forces.

Hegel’s philosophy offers a dynamic and dialectical view of reality, which avoids the static and dualistic pitfalls of many previous theories by accounting for balance, contradictions, and the constant evolution and growth occurring. He shows how reality and being is not a fixed or given entity, but a process of becoming, involving contradictions, conflicts and resolutions. It is the most clear headed and philosophy most congruent with organic human behavior. Hegel is clearly one of the most influential thinkers in the history of philosophy, whose ideas have shaped and inspired many of the movements and thinkers that all of us respect and follow. Hegel is not only a philosopher of the past, but also a philosopher of the present and the future.

>>21889408
holy fuck

>>21888863
recognition is okay. sometimes it's annoying. why would somebody choose it as the end-all, be-all of life? it sounds dumb as fuck

>>21889624
no man is an island

>>21889780
no, but out of all the things our lives revolve around, we pick... recognition? really? I guess life truly is as bleak as Rousseau put it in the 1st discourse

>>21888533
>My high schooler relativism means, like, nothing is real man. Like, values are like, just things man
Cool. It's almost like that's the braindead take he is responding too.

>>21889914
Then what is the justification for some kind of absolute, observer independent conception of progress? Can you summarize that? Is it just that progress is hereby being 'measured' by how far it takes towards the 'absolute'? But then, if that is the case, it's unclear how you can make absolute judgements about how reality, taken as a whole, has 'progressed'.

>>21889914
bruh
it has nothing to do with relativism, retard
progress is an inherently relative concept because it requires both contextual goals and metrics.
If a car drives from point A to point B, we couldn't state whether or not the car has made any progress unless we assume that the goal(s) of the car, and we have a metric to measure against.
And that's just a braindead analogy

>>21880683
kek

>>21889624
It's about being recognised as a subject and about establishing intersubjectivity.

>>21890648
why does that matter

>>21888533
>>21889975
Don't know what you mean here. If I launch a rocket I can track its progress along its trajectory, no? The times at which events that are in different reference frames appear to occur are subjective, but not in a way that is arbitrary.

I can also track the growth of a plant or animal and its progress towards adulthood, right? Biology certainly allows for such progress.

Physics is filled with essential measures that are subjective, but not arbitrary, e.g. entropy as demonstrated in mixing paradoxes. I don't think anyone is going to argue that you can do physics arbitrarily and get correct results.

Relativity in motion has been explored since Galileo, and embraced by Liebnitz and Mach even before SR and GR.

The best arguments against progress tend to be arguments for eternalism, but these are far from inconclusive. Many arguments for eternalism in pop sci rest on bad interpretations of the Twin Paradox by philosophers who have in turn influenced physicists.

That or they are motivated by Russell's poor understanding of Cantor and the denseness problem; problems since resolved, since they reduced to the old Eleatic Paradoxes (these being a fallacy of composition, as time is the dimension in which physical change occurs, not a continuum that exists independently). Certainly, there is plenty of room to argue for local becoming as a an empirical fact better supported than the denial of time's passage or change.


So what exactly is the opposition to progress?

If progress in physical motion is possible, and biological development, why not social progress?

>Because, who decides what the goal is, that's a values question, the is/ought problem!!!

Which is a fair criticism of some forms of historical progress but not Hegel's, since in PR and other places he is specifically talking about the logic of existing, immanent institutions, NOT how things "ought" to be.

In his antiquated language, he is looking at the essence of institutions. We might update this to say that he is looking at the game theoretic logic of how institutions DO behave in the world, not how they should. His conception of how progress occurs is close to evolution by natural selection, particularly newer, information theoretic formulations of that paradigm.

When there is a contradiction between the information held by the institution (in the case of the state, the Constitution is like the genome) and the enviornment, there is gradual selection towards resolving that contradictions.

Hegel isn't talking ought here. If we can meaningfully talk about the progression of evolution over time (note, progress here is not a value judgement, it is about change in a process over time), we can meaningfully talk about progress in history.


Obviously he is wrong about "what is," at times, but he isn't wrong because of the is/ought problem, which is what I assume you're suggesting.

>>21890877
Are you asking why intersubjectivity matters?

>>21890115
So physical motion is impossible?>>21891060

See above. Certainly people have argued that change is impossible, but it's not a particularly strong position since it flies in the face of all empirical evidence.

Or, since you use the word value, I figure you might be thinking is/ought, which again, refer to the above.

Hegel is looking at the logic determining progress for states as they are, not as they should be. You can say he is wrong about all those things, e.g. behaviors of institutions don't match his descriptions, but he isn't mixing values and descriptions.

Hegel is explicitly trying to get away from Kant's deontological objective values that are grounded in reason. He is merging the voluntarist, rationalist, and historicist camps of ethics into something new, grounding the rational element in the world as it is. The rules he sees at work in nature are in part based on his logical metaphysics, but they can be grounded in empirical language just as easily.

The subjective logic acknowledges subjectivity. The objective logic is more akin to category theory in mathematical foundations. In either case, it is a study of what is.

But a modern reader is sure to get confused because the subjective/objective divide is ground into them. What Hegel says is that there is no such divide. Subjective experience is part of nature, humans are natural animals. Thus the whole of subjective experience is part of being, not a mere map of it.

Thus, when he describes the world, he cares about how it is as revealed by the empirical sciences and how it appears.

His Logic wants to loop in the reasoning subject, rather than ignore it. It's a solid starting point at least, since the "view from nowhere" often leads science astray and is a purely philosophical invention (e.g. the Maxwell's Demon was so hard to dispell due to the problem of positing magical non-physivsl observers).

>>21881158
I’d argue Marx is the opposite of gnosis

>“May Hegel's philosophy of absolute nonsense - three-fourths cash and one-fourth crazy fancies - continue to pass for unfathomable wisdom without anyone suggesting as an appropriate motto for his writings Shakespeare's words: "Such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not," or, as an emblematical vignette, the cuttle-fish with its ink-bag, creating a cloud of darkness around it to prevent people from seeing what it is, with the device: mea caligine tutus. - May each day bring us, as hitherto, new systems adapted for University purposes, entirely made up of words and phrases and in a learned jargon besides, which allows people to talk whole days without saying anything; and may these delights never be disturbed by the Arabian proverb: "I hear the clappering of the mill, but I see no flour." - For all this is in accordance with the age and must have its course.”

Anyone who has even bothered to read Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root would immediately recognize how utterly stupid Hegel is. Kant created the categories in order to show that if we apply the concepts we used solely in experience to the supersensible, we end up talking about literal nonsense; Schopenhauer went much further and showed that the understanding was not discursive or abstract, but simply the faculty that detects a modification in the sensory organ as a cause (in time) associated with an object lying in space. Hegel's system is so fucking stupid, I genuinely feel sorry for the idiots who actually try to read this dumbass.

>The second thing which the Understanding does in converting sensation into perception, is to make a single perception out of a double sensation; for each eye in fact receives its own separate impression from the object we are looking at; each even in a slightly different direction: nevertheless that object presents itself as a single one.
>This can only take place in the Understanding, and the process by which it is brought about is the following: Our eyes are never quite parallel, excepting when we look at a distant object, i.e. one which is more than 200 feet from us. At other times they are both directed towards the object we are viewing, whereby they converge, so as to make the lines proceeding from each eye to the exact point of the object on which it is fixed, form an angle, called the optic angle; the lines themselves are called optic axes. Now, when the object lies straight before us, these lines exactly impinge upon the centre of each retina, therefore in two points which correspond exactly to each other in each eye.
>The Understanding, whose only business it is to look for the cause of all things, at once recognises the impression as coming from a single outside point, although here the sensation is double, and attributes it to one cause, which therefore presents itself as a single object. For all that is perceived by us, is perceived as a cause — that is to say, as the cause of an effect we have experienced, consequently in the Understanding.

>Kant, has been criticizing Reason, and clipping her wings, has he? Well, then, we will invent a new sort of Reason, such as has never been heard of — a Reason that does not think, but which has direct intuition — a Reason which sees Ideas (a high-flown word, made to mystify), sees them bodily; or which apprehends directly that which you and others seek to prove; or, again, a Reason which has forebodings of all this — this last for the benefit of those who do not care to make large concessions, but also are satisfied with very little.
>Let us thus pass off early inculcated, popular conceptions for direct revelations of this new kind of Reason, i.e. for inspirations from above. As for that old-fashioned Reason, which criticism has criticized away, let us degrade it, call it Understanding, and send it about its business.
>Well, and what is to become of real, true Understanding? — What in the world have we to do with real, true Understanding? — You smile incredulously; but we know our listeners, and the harum, horum we see on the students’ benches before us. Bacon of Verulam already in his time said: ‘Young men learn to believe at Universities.’

>>21891103
Come on man, even philosophers who specialize in Schopenhauer and admit that they dislike Hegel still say that Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel is basically contentless and motivated by emotion.

Schopenhauer lived a comfortable but spare life on inherited wealth. He always thought he should be recognized as a great genius and stewed as other got recognition. Hegel became THE target for his ire as he rose to become the most influential living thinker, first in Germany, then the world.

Schopenhauer tried teaching across the hall, at the same time as Hegel to lure people away and poach the attention, but ended up lecturing to an empty room.

The animosity was also rooted in jealousy. Unlike most philosophers, Hegel was married and had several children and a happy marriage. Before marriage he was a beer hall guy, with various romantic relationships. He also had a lot of friends and was active in the social scene.

Schopenhauer by contrast was a misanthrope with few close acquaintances. He did have some romantic relationships owing to his relative wealth, but these seem to have gone poorly. Even his own mom was down on him. So Hegel basically had everything he wanted, seemingly effortlessly, at a time when Schopenhauer was very angry at the world.

>>21891103
>Schopenhauer went much further and showed that the understanding was not discursive or abstract, but simply the faculty that detects a modification in the sensory organ as a cause (in time) associated with an object lying in space. Hegel's system is so fucking stupid, I genuinely feel sorry for the idiots who actually try to read this dumbass.

How is this a plus for him? I don't fault old thinkers for coming up with conceptions of nature that get BTFO by later scientific advancements, but they certainly aren't a plus.

Understanding is discursive. People with split brains answer the same question differently with each hand as only one hemisphere of the brain processes most of the input and output. You have phenomena like blind sight, where damage to the occipital lobe causes an individual to lose all experience of vision, even in dreams or memory, but their intact eyes can still direct them to avoid obstacles and even catch balls despite there being no experience of sight.

Reports from stroke victims or people on high doses of disassociative anesthetics report their visual field becoming unfathomable, pure sensory feed with no connection to concrete universals. They "see" but lose the concepts of sight, and so are unable to do things like call 9/11 because they can't recognize numbers on a phone or tell where a phone ends and a table begins. "My Stroke of Insight," has a neuroscientist talk through their experience of a major stroke.

Of course, Hegel is wrong on the unity of the will here too. Hume, with his bundle of experience, and Nietzsche with his "congress of souls," along with the Indian philosophers who embraced anatta seem more correct here.

As for discrete objects causing sensory experiences, evidence suggests that sensory systems create discrete objects, not the other way around. Boundaries are arbitrary and blurry (e.g. Mandlebrot on the British coast). Physics and cognitive science converge on discrete objects being an illusion, one which breaks down at very small or very large scales.

Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman's the Case Against Reality makes a solid argument against discrete objects. They are like the icons on a computer desktop, a generated image created to help the user, but not a mirror held up to reality. Charles Pinter makes a similar argument, more focused on physics than cognitive science, in a similar vein.

That is, the empiricism we rely on for science has the direction of cause going in the reverse.

Hegel gets a lot wrong vis-á-vis philosophy of mind, but the relationship of universals to cognition seems fairly spot on so far, so he has that going for him.

>>21891244
BTW, Schopenhauer does get some things right, like that human needs and desires affect sensory experiences.

I also like his theory of aesthetics, although it isn't quite my favorite and it is bit of Indian thinkers.

But other parts reduce to naive realism.

>>21891068
yes I am

why do two or more creative, imaginative retards communicating with each other to make each other more retarded matter (in the grand scheme of things)

>>21891297
Have you ever bought something? Have you ever asked somebody for a direction? Have you ever safely crossed a street by looking at the traffic lights? How can you possibly say that intersubjectivity doesn't matter?

What I'm interested in is how Hegel was so influential on future thinkers despite his philosophy being so obscurant

>>21891541
Yeah. And? That's a functional account, not a teleological or axiological account. And we still deal with hopeless retardation in every single aspect of it all. It doesn't matter. Intersubjectivity may as well be a suicide pact.

He knew that niggers are not fully human
>The peculiarly African character is difficult to comprehend, for the very reason that in reference to it, we must quite give up the principle which naturally accompanies all our ideas — the category of Universality. In Negro life the characteristic point is the fact that consciousness has not yet attained to the realization of any substantial objective existence — as for example, God, or Law — in which the interest of man’s volition is involved and in which he realizes his own being. This distinction between himself as an individual and the universality of his essential being, the African in the uniform, undeveloped oneness of his existence has not yet attained; so that the Knowledge of an absolute Being, an Other and a Higher than his individual self, is entirely wanting.

>>21879146
He knew destruction, chaos, death.

Hegel is the progenitor of communism, fascism, modern liberalism, and critical theory. He was a huge booster of the work of Adam Smith and helped spread the gospel of capitalism while also being a major source for authoritarians to draw inspiration from.

The man was sexist and yet helped create modern feminism, having a huge influence on De Beauvoir and others.

The man was racist and yet the progenitor of critical race theory.

He is a specter haunting all of modern politics. Modern politics is just the battle of different Hegel's. The man was simultaneously held up as a shining example by the Nazis, Stalin's USSR, and liberal theologians.

He is death, the destroyer of worlds.

>>21891682
> He was a huge booster of the work of Adam Smith and helped spread the gospel of capitalism while also being a major source for authoritarians to draw inspiration from.

>The man was sexist and yet helped create modern feminism, having a huge influence on De Beauvoir and others.

>The man was racist and yet the progenitor of critical race theory.

All of these contradictions end up proving he was correct. The dialectic is foolproof.

>>21891690
Precisely. He was a deity of the underworld.

>>21891565
Good ideas will still make it around, even if they are presented poorly; this has been the case throughout the history of philosophy and the sciences.

Second, not all his work is that painfully obscure. His lectures are fairly straightforward. The Philosophy of Right is also not that obscure outside of the opening and the part on abstract right, and even that isn't that difficult. It's really the Preface to the Phenomenology, normally the first and only thing people read from Hegel, that sets the expectation that he is totally impenetrable (although I'd say the Logic is by far and away the hardest of his texts.)

Third, he was apparently much more comprehendible in person and taught a lot of people who helped spread his system. A lot of his influence is through reinterpreters.

Fourth, and this point is more controversial, his very obscurantism makes him more influential precisely because his system can be interpreted in so many different ways. This is also true of mystical elements of Plato.

I would even argue that Hegel was well aware of this fact and at times intentionally played into it. For Hegel, "philosophy is thought comprehended in its own time." Our understanding of previous thinkers changes over time, which is obvious if you look at sources on any thinker, from Aristotle to Nietzsche, over the years. The current epoch puts it's stamp on the interpretation of the past epochs.

Having started as a theologian who interpreted scripture in a very abstract, philosophical mold, and who was inspired by Patristic Logos theology, he would have understood how vagueness allows the same core ideas to take on different masks. I find the fact that Hegel loved the Heraclitus fragments and was an avid student of the esoterica, Hermeticism, etc. to be evidence for this supposition.

There is very much a core to Hegel that people can agree upon, but his work can also be taken in radically different ways of you remove any given piece from the overall system, which is what you see in Neo-Marxist and anti-metaphysical interpretations. You have the full, inflationary Hegel of Taylor, or an even more inflated Hegel in Magee, and the deflated Hegel's of Pippin, Pinkhard, Kojeve, etc.

But a lot of the influence just comes down to having great intuitions that have been borne out by more sober minded, iterative empirical investigations over the intervening centuries and an extremely original, systematic philosophy.

>>21891297
What does matter in the grand scheme of things? If someone became emperor of a galaxy cluster and lived for 2 million years would that be enough? They would still exert control over just a tiny fraction of the visible universe for a tiny fraction of time. When does anything gain meaning?

Intersubjectivty matters for humans because that is how we exist. A man cut off from other men doesn't become a normal man who just hasn't had a chance to communicate with others. Children cut off from social contact often die due to "faliure to thrive," and even when this isn't the case they become profoundly retarded. Blocking access to intersubjective life appears to take a hammer to problem solving and conceptualization abilities.

Humans are a social animal; nowhere do they appear to have lived solitary lives in prehistory. Even those who do seek solitude do so after growing up steeped in intersubjective life. Since Hegel cares about looking at things as they are, he is looking at man as a social, self-interpreting animal.

We (often) think in language, a tool for communicating intersubjectivily. Art is entirely bound up in intersubjectivity. Science, empiricism as a whole for the most part, is a systematic system for documenting intersubjectivily verifiable observations/facts and then constructing models to explain them using intersubjective language.

>>21891759
Intersubjectivity... for what? Again, you're only making appeals to its functionality. The whole point of this conversation was about dealing with the soundness of "recognition" as the linchpin of history and the promise of the "end" of history through its fulfillment.

>>21880759
This is what analytical philosophy does to your reading of Hegel, actually.

>>21891867
Hegel didn't make thymos the lynchpin for historical progress though. That's Fukuyama and to a lesser extent Kojeve.

The resolution of contradictions, the process of the dialectical, drives history of Hegel. History is where essence becomes actualized. "The actual is the rational and the rational is the actual."

History only has a "goal" inasmuch as human institutions have goals as their rational essence. Institutions do have this goal, and it is the promotion of human freedom (negative, reflexive, and social). The goal of history isn't recognition, that's simply a human psychological need that was frustrated under slavery and serfdom. The goal of history is freedom, "the free will that wills itself."

Freedom is the goal because that is the purpose of institutions. Chief among these is the state because the state is self-consciously rational (think organizational intelligence/information theoretic models of distributed intelligence).

Obviously, real states do not all promote human freedom. Hegel allows that "bad states " that do not actualize this essence exist in the same way that a severed human hand is still a hand. But in the long term such states will come into being because states that prevent freedom will pass away since they are in contradiction with their essence.

Or, for a more modern telling, they will face selection effects and evolve towards self consciousness (statistics offices are the sensory systems of mature states today) and the promotion of freedom (e.g. China embracing markets in order to foster greater growth due to security concerns).

>>21883886
While I appreciate the effortposting, translating Hegel and getting rid of the metaphysics to appeal to modern sensibilities is pretty lame
Truth is not a pick and choose buffet, and it would be wiser four our epoch instead to learn to think in a more flexible way other than strict materialims
Boehme and Hegel without metaphysics are butchered
Its like what they did with Adam Smith, retaining the economical but discarding the moral portions of his writings, which are a single package

>>21883363
STEMfag here, this post is absolute nonsense
Kindly kys

>>21892247
I don't think translating Hegel's language vis-á-vis phenomena in the world into modern language is denuding Hegel at all. If you can explain Hegel's self-conscious state and teleological conception of history in modern terms, say using computational organization theory/welfare economics and evolutionary game theory/information theory respectively, that doesn't say anything about metaphysics.

Just because science is frequently packaged with a sort of naive realist physicalism does not mean science requires, or even necessarily supports this ontology. Science is about epistemological methods and modes of discourse and verification.

Even if Hegel is completely right about metaphysics, the processes he outlined should be describable in empirical terms and modelable. After all, Hegel thinks nature is rational and that man can understand this essential rationality (a conceit made by science as well).

An evolutionary conception of historical progress also helps explain why we don't zip right to utopia. Plants had to make it onto land before animals could. Some steps require prerequisites, i.e. Hegel's dialectical progress.

Likewise, it helps explain why we see steps backwards, which is not unlike how we see mass extinctions in the past.

Clearly, human intelligence has been adaptive. It has helped our species thrive and reproduce at a tremendous scale. But we don't say "oh, this intelligence couldn't have been the result of evolution, a chaotic progression towards harmonization with the logic of the enviornment because if it was it should have emerged before 4 billion years of life had passed." But of course, exactly this sort of argument is made against historical progress because Hegel didn't have the language to describe it as an emergent, chaotic process (although he does a good enough job).

For Hegel, the logic of institutions vis-á-vis human freedom is largely implicit, emergent, except for the fully developed state (although one could easily see how other types of organizations that didn't exist in his day could fit the bill). Just because there is an ideal solution out there for evolution to progress towards doesn't mean we get there immediately, just as human intelligence doesn't pop out in the Cambrian despite it being clearly useful and the only real means for life to expand by moving between planets.

>>21892342
What exactly does it mean to be a "STEMfag" and why should we think that it makes you an expert on something like the influence of Hegel's commentary on Adam Smith?

Pic related in that it is full of interviews with scientists saying the same thing as the first part of that post, although not in reference to Hegel.

>>21879146
more than almost anyone

>>21894127
More truth at least

>>21891682
>write a theory attempting to describe everything
>become arguably responsible for everything
it's so easy

>>21894127
>almost
Who knew more or as much?

>>21895764
Hard to think of an answer on that. Hegel lived in probably the last era where it was still possible to read up on all the different advances across the sciences and keep up with all the current trends in philosophy and was one of the few people to do so.

>>21891195
Schopenhauer gives countless examples of why Hegel's system was stupid, it's a common mistake for pseuds to constantly misread Schopenhauer.
>>21891244
Understanding isn't discursive, otherwise animals would not be able to percieve without the 12 categories that Kant made up. The understanding is the faculty that is a mere condition of experience, how on earth do concepts which are fixed via symbols lying in space and time without the brains innate function of converting the sensation of light into an objective intuition that is not inverted and which presents itself as one singular object rather then two. Understanding something means to pre-consciously "get it" before being able to conceptually articulate it. What you are talking about is meta-cognition, which is reflective and dicursive.

>>21891103
Fourfold root is honestly underrated. I don't know why it's not recommended as a pre-req more often despite Schopenhauer urging readers in WWR to read it many times.

>>21897334
>Schopenhauer gives countless examples of why Hegel's system was stupid, it's a common mistake for pseuds to constantly misread Schopenhauer.
Give us some.
I've read most of Schpenhauer's works and am sympathetic toward him as a person but philosophically he is a mere anecdote of Hegel's milieu.

Plato and Lao Zi, with the Bible for flavor. You don't need more. Plato says everything Kant and Hegel pretend to be novel about, with Hegel additionally channeling what is essentially Taoism. So these are mere footnotes who are discardable, Peirce absolutely MOGS these continentals larping as analytics for aesthetics as he's actually of practical use.

>>21898056
I'd think Neetzsch would be a more likeable person, but Schopy is irrefutable.

>>21897334
>The understanding is the faculty that is a mere condition of experience, how on earth do concepts which are fixed via symbols lying in space and time without the brains innate function of converting the sensation of light into an objective intuition that is not inverted and which presents itself as one singular object rather then two.

I have no idea what this trainwreck of a sentence is trying to say.

The trancendental was an excellent intuition by Kant. It clearly has problems, as pointed out early by Jacobi, who Schopenhauer follows.

But Schopenhauer's solution has been blown the fuck our by the empirical sciences. Representation and will are not two sides of the same coin. Our relation with sensory phenomena is not like the relationship between electricity and a spark, where both "are" electricity.

Neurons aren't light waves. Arguably, information theoretic accounts have done the most to explain how sensory systems work at a fundemental level, but there is is obvious from experimentation that sensory experience is largely the creation of computational heuristics applied to incoming information, while the vast majority of information picked up by a sense organ is almost immediately dropped. That is, the brain sifts incoming information for patterns relevant to survival/reproduction, then radically reshapes it (for example, your entire visual field has to be flipped upside down and your blind spot gets filled in.

For example, perceived visual acuity for peripheral vision is nothing like what experimentation shows. People can't see for shit outside the center of the visual field and don't see in color in the periphery. The sensation of seeing a much larger visual field is an adaptive endemic hallucination. Which goes quite well with Kant's intuition.

>>21891195
This is all just made up nonsense.

>>21899231
Schope setting up at the same time and place as Hegel and expecting to draw his crowd definitely happened. It's a classic story covered in the big chronological histories of philosophy (e.g. Durant, Kenney, etc.).


Schope being a misanthrope is admitted to by the dude himself in letters, and his own mom tells him as much in a letter. His problems and grievances with women are no secret either, a substantial share of all Schopenhauer memes are incels using his renown to trade on some of his more unfortunate rants against women.

Hegel being married is also well established, and is indeed uncommon for philosophers in general. We know he had several affairs from letters and because he stayed in contact with and financially supported the children. He married an 18 year old when he was about 40, which we know from official documents, and has 4 (I think) legitimate sons. The guy only had sons despite the several kids, another testament to his Chad seed. We also know he was well liked and very active in the social scene and a bar/club regular in his youth from letters.

As to Schopenhauer's commentary on Hegel, of course scholars take the actual refutations of prior German idealists seriously, even if they don't agree with them. Here though, Schopenhauer doesn't mention Hegel by name as often.

What they discount are the ad hominem rants where he says Hegel is pure nonsense and just hurls childish insults.