/lit/ - Literature

>>22361911
It is the moral I upon which the modern civilized subject coheres and by such feats in transgressing his moral education he brings forth through a certain neurotic regularity a force repulsion that traverses the sphere or plane of the empiric, thereby unwittingly making the latter invisible known to himself at least. This need not mean that morality itself is objective (or not), but rather through his own contravention of the inherited, i.e. inculcated law, a force of unseen repulsion is uncoiled, What is this force in truth? Is it quantum, is it psychological & thus micro linguistic, is it something akin to a vapor (this last seems least likely)?

>>22361911
p123, the object for-itself is the object as a One

>>22361911
The supersensible beyond is our cognition of “force.” When perception can’t account for the coherence of properties in the thing, consciousness introduces the notion of a non-sensible reason for an object to exist. The object exists as an expression of this underlying uniting reason but does not exhaust it in its expression within the object. Mechanical, chemical, biological forces are all formulations of the super sensible reason.

>>22361911
hegelbro I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the retards here havn't even read Kant. i don't think any substantial commentary on your post is forthcoming. but feel free to speak into the void.

Why do people waste time with Hegel? He was objectively wrong on almost every level about everything. His theory of history is not actually how history works. He thinks it’s a dialectic towards greater freedom but really it’s just a change of who wears the shackles
His metaphysics is bullshit, he completely ignores the phenomena/noumena problem and literally assumes sense perception is a reliable device when it comes to epistemology. He’s a goddamn retard, the closest thing to being right are two things. Separation being an illusion and the master-slave dialectic. Read Kant, Heidegger, Stirner, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, and Weinenger if you actually want to seriously study philosophy

RED FOX OUT

>>22362173
>Weinenger
>RED FOX OUT
absolute cringe

>>22362183
You will never achieve Brahman, friendo

RED FOX OUT

>>22362189
Stop mentioninig eastern philosophy in these threads you fags, I'm sick of it
t. Hindu

>>22361931
I re-read it. So essentially the distinction between the One and the Also falls outside of the object qua object. The Also and the oneness are both within the Thing (Ding/Dinge), but the oneness of the one Ding is antithetically opposed to the Also of the many Dinge; oneness and multiplicity both fall within the *universal* concept of the Thing, the Ding, but in terms of *actual objective* things, the one thing represents the One but is opposed in its Oneness by the Many, by other Things, which are in and for themselves their own Ones.
>>22362156
Ah, force. I was just about to get to that. So Force is supersensible, is expressed by the object. We invent Force--Force is just the way our consciousness posits the unity of the coherence.
>>22362166
I should've started with Kant but Hegel is too good to put down now. I must read him all, all, all.
>>22362173
But I enjoy reading him. And he seems fine. I like him.

>>22362200
No one cares that you’re Hindu, faggot, I know white liberals worship the ground you walk on but I don’t. And most people here don’t. If you’re getting pissed off at others finding Hinduism profound then that’s your problem

>>22362243
Woah, the two single greatest surviving legacies of antiquity, the latter not superceded until the late 19th century, interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini

>>22361911
Hegel is neither a Platonist bundle theorist nor an Aristotelean substratum theorist. Rather, he posits the concrete universal as emerging from Spirit, collective subjectivity. In an odd way, this makes him in some ways akin to Wittgenstein, in that he has language emerging from social use, although Hegel is more focused on both the historical factors in this emergence and the fact that language is not suis generis, magically cut off from being (and cutting us off from being), but a part of being like anything else.

>do we have to refer to some supersensible beyond?

No. See the Logic. Hegel absolutely disagrees with the idea of positing some sort of unknowable cause at work in our experiences ala Kant's noumena. He thinks Kant ends up with his dualism problem because he isn't sufficiently critical and dogmatically assumes that thought MUST be about external objects and then dogmatically interjects Aristotle's categories via judgement.

>Chapters 1 to 3 effectively follow a developmental series of distinct shapes of consciousness—jointly epistemological and ontological attitudes articulated by criteria which are, regarded from one direction, criteria for certain knowledge, and from the other, criteria for the nature of the objects of such knowledge. In chapter 1, the attitude of Sense-certainty takes immediately given perceptual simples—the sort of role played by the so-called sense-data of early twentieth-century analytic epistemology, for example, with which a subject is purportedly acquainted as bare thises—as the fundamental objects known. By following this form of consciousness’s attempts to make these implicit criteria explicit, we are meant to appreciate that any such contents, even the apparently most immediate ones, are in fact grasped conceptually, and so, in Hegel’s terminology, their reception is actually mediated by the concepts with which they are grasped. Hegel is clear that these contents are not merely qualitative simples that are immediately apprehended, but comprehended instances of the conceptual determination of singularity [Einzelheit] (Phen: §91). Such a simple this, then, can also be understood as an instance of what the Medievals discussed as thisness—a general property of an individual thing’s being identical to itself. One might compare Hegel’s point here to that expressed by Kant in his well known claim from Critique of Pure Reason (A51/B75), that without general concepts, intuitions (singular [einzeln] purportedly immediate mental representations), are blind. However, Hegel seems to want to make this point without relying on Kant’s formal distinction between concepts and intuitions as different species of representation. The idea seems to be that for Hegel, the same content can play the roles played by both concepts and intuitions in Kant. (The lessons of this chapter have sometimes been likened to those of Wilfrid Sellars’s famous criticism of the empiricist myth of the given.)

>>22362173
People waste their time with Hegel because he has very interesting things to say. You have clearly not "wasted" your time with Hegel and so you get everything you think you know about him ass backwards.

Hegel absolutely addresses the phenomenon/noumena distinction. His problems with Kant are a defining feature of his project. Both Logics focus on this issue and why he thought Kant was wrong, see: >>22362270.

Writing 1,400 pages on a subject is not ignoring it.

Hegel's epistemology isn't anything like you describe, it's circular and falliblist.

The idea that the end of slavery and serfdom for large majorities of the populations in a great deal of the world hasn't affected freedom at all is pure edge teen nonsense and in any event Hegel's conception of freedom includes both strong negative and positive/reflexive elements, along with a social element.

>>22362173
>Don't read the most influential modern philosopher if you want to do real philosophy, read someone like Schopenhauer who is more popular with internet amateurs and artists than real philosophers instead!

Hegel is absolutely huge for the continental tradition. If not the most influential thinker, then at least the most influential for the French and still up near the top.

But Hegel isn't big in Anglo-American analytical philosophy? Think again, that shit is entirely a reaction to Hegel's dominance. Pierce? A Hegelian. Russell? A guy who got filtered by Hegel and made it his life's mission to erase Hegel. But his project collapsed in his lifetime, for reasons that he would have foreseen had he read Hegel. The Science of Logic remains a monumental text while the Principia has become a historical curiosity.

>>22362376
>Russell? A guy who got filtered by Hegel and made it his life's mission to erase Hegel. But his project collapsed in his lifetime, for reasons that he would have foreseen had he read Hegel.
so true

>>22362293
No he does not address the noumena/phenomenal schism in the example you pointed to. He just pulls that historical dialectic as a manifestation of the spirit, and further reality itself, out of his ass. There’s literally no reason to take his argument there seriously besides “Dude trust me bro”. And yes the specific institutions of slavery and serfdom ended but functional replacements for them are ubiquitous. Hell, even a midwit like Chomsky knows that.
You have not responded adequately to any of my arguments

RED FOX OUT

>>22362376
Pierce and Russell are both retarded. And there is no shortage of philosophers who thought Hegel was wrong on a lot. Hell, even the popular ones like I mentioned, Nietzsche and Schop both hate him. You guys really have to try harder. I’ve read hegel. His work is literal out of touch wishful thinking from a 19th century German who never did a hard day’s work in his life

RED FOX OUT

You guys are probably the same faggots who claimed Nietzsche was actually a philosemite in the relevant thread I made a few days ago. I commend you all for actually reading the works, even if it all literally flew over all your heads

>>22362458
please just stop talking

>>22362464
Please actually prove what I’m saying wrong

>>22362458
Filtered. You can disagree with what Hegel does vis-á-vis Kant but you're not even close to describing it remotely accurately.

Hegel was a hermeticist. this was definitively proven in the book "hegel and hermeticism", just read Corpus Hermeticum

>>22362467
your retarded bait so that you could get schooled by an actual hegelian has failed. woe to the sorry bastard that would stoop to your level and raise you to the standpoint of philosophy.

>>22362471
Then describe it more accurately.
>dude the spirit totally discovers itself through a dialectic and that is ultimate reality
Imagine believing this. He literally has a section on “sense certainty”. Please for the love of all that is holy justify that. Or show how that’s somehow NOT what he’s saying
And IF that is what he’s saying then all my criticisms hold true. You know even Jesus was hated for telling the truth

RED FOX OUT

>>22362486
>RED FOX OUT
holy cringe dude

>>22362473
This is true, and because I hath studied HegDawg well, I will be sending his spirit off to Red Fox here >>22362458 in his dreams.

Get ready fucko. You didn't pay attention to the Logic before, so now you're going to read the Lesser and Greater Logics. You're going to read them in a dream so real you'll swear you're awake. Hours, days will pass in this one night. And Big Heg is going to hold you down and rest his nuts on your forehead the whole time, until you finish it all.

This is the power of the Absolute.

>>22362477
>schooled
You guys haven’t even read Hegel properly and walk around like you know everything about his philosophy. Woe unto y’all fr

>>22362488
Not an argument

RED FOX OUT

>>22362489
off the charts levels of cringe

You literally couldn’t write this. As soon as I started questioning your guys favwit philosopher and actually pressing you guys about his philosophy and you guys resorted to nothing but ad hominem and then when that didn’t work you just stopped replying. Yes woe unto the one who dares to ask a “Hegelian” to actually critically think about what their precious philosopher actually says.

RED FOX OUT

>>22362217
Yes, we invent force. An addendum I should've added as it is only a step on the path to self-consciousness and higher understanding.

>>22362458
Hegel does address the phenomenon/noumenon distinction you fucking spastic. Look no further than the 10 page introduction of the phenomenology. Hegel writes that during cognition of an object, there is no strict delineation between phenomenon and noumenon, rather there are stages or “moments” of increasing interpenetration between knower and known. We first posit a noumenon (this is the notion) and then determine whether or not the phenomena (the object for us) lives up to the notion we have created. The object either does, yet leaves more unexplained, whereby we establish another, different notion, or it doesn’t and we adjust how we approach the object. Either way, the “noumenon” is nothing more than an ideal notion posited by consciousness which constantly changes.

So to answer your question in short, Hegel does not explain cognition of objects in terms of noumenon, if we understand by noumenon the Kantian idea of a fixed object beyond the barrier of possible experience. As described, Hegel’s idea of an object in itself is much more dynamic.

>>22362752
That's not actually addressing the schism which he has no proof he is ever able to cross even though he acts like it does. just menitioning phenomena and noumena and pretending that you can just cross the schism is not actually addressing the schism. and since he offers no further argument than what you pointed out, he's not actually addressing it. because addressing it would be acknowledging that it exists and to imply that you can just cross it willy nilly thru muh interpretations is not actually recognizing it and thus not addressing it.

RED FOX OUT