/lit/ - Literature

I responded to this.

Where were you when anon ended philosophy?

I've read nothing of Hegel. What does he say about God? Feel free to be brief.

>>6587194
God is the Absolute and God is the universe becoming itself.

Practically every philosopher has ended philosophy when they have an system comparable to the ones Hegel or Wittgenstein had though.

>>6587213
an actual*

>>6587194
He basically takes the conception of God and notices it's an immediacy of your own mind, but does so in a way that negates the classical conceptions of God. Kind of hard to describe.

yeah, the only thing Hegel doesn't explain is why there can't be other variants to the statist bourgeois system, almost as if he was a shill for it!
Also, if he was so great why did everyone misinterpret his idea of the end of history, uh? Even Marx got a couple guys getting that after the end of capitalism we don't get an utopia but the real begining of history.

Does he say anything about music? The "music of the spheres" has always thrown me off. I can only abstract that it has something to do with the perfection of nature and its ratios.

As I read Hegel, I become increasingly convince that Christian and even secular attacks on "scientism" are pathetic, and don't even understand against what they are arguing. It's very obvious that Christians attack scientism because those who practice it aren't folllowing Christianity, and that's the sole reason, but the true problem with scientism is already present in Hegel, and recognizing Hegel's response would break Christianity too.

The "scientific method" is just a dogmatic, triadic dialectic, that's so obsessed with its own correctness it doesn't examine itself. Once one takes the Hegelian stance on science, and looks again, they see Christians as even more impotent and stupid than before.

The splinter in your eye is the best magnifying-glass available.

>>6587229
What?

>>6587239
I'm sure he does somewhere, but I haven't come across it yet.

>>6587239
>>6587248

>>6587242
I some times wonder if youre just like this in here and irl you act like a shy pathetic kid, a la Deep&Edgy; or if you are 100% authentic. And if the second is the case I wonder how long is your wait list for some sexy time.

A dabbler in the hermetic, hence the occult, hence the satanic. Dangerous to the soul, and not to be trusted.

>>6587252
Hegel takes the spirit of his own time and from there he proposes a revision of history, but in it he fails to notice that other processes were not only possible but already happening in other places of the world. Now a days we can see how societies that tried to artificially follow the european history end up falling back to their own traditions. While Hegel is mostly right, he was being a propaganda machine for the empire. There were so little formal challenges to his ideas because doing so would be professional suicide. In a few hundred years there will be better rebuttals to his ideas, once philosophy moves away from his shadow.

>>6587242
>It's very obvious that Christians attack scientism because those who practice it aren't folllowing Christianity,
I don't know what your beef is with Christianity. I attack actual scientism for the same reasons Nietzsche or Kierkegaard would have.

Just because he responded to it, doesn't mean that he was right. Hegel serves the same purpose in philosophy as Kenneth Waltz does in IR theory. What I mean is that whilst his own theories are simplified and probably laughable, they are sufficiently paradigm changing to provoke even more interesting refutations. At the very least we can thank Hegel for sufficiently raising Schopenhauer and Nietzsche's ire, to the point where they felt they had to repute his theories.

>>6587259
I don't talk about philosophy as much IRL but I'm pretty much the same person. And I do get love interests without trying too much.

It's kind of hard for me to talk with people on a spiritual/unsubstantial level, because any talk about politics/society/abstractions makes me want to deconstruct. I can't ever say I have a political stance because I don't, and people don't really understand that it seems. I instead am sort of an iconoclast and try really hard to make people stop believing the things they do by perpetually showing everyone that they don't have adequate knowledge. If they care.

>>6587269
Okay but the bigger the philosopher, the bigger the misinterpretations will be. I agree that many people try to use Hegelian philosophy to gain power. That's to be expected

>>6587298
D-do you talk during sex? I-I'm just asking f-for a friend...

>>6587286
I don't ever experience scientism in my personal life and I work at a university. It's a mystery to me because I don't see it. And I hate Christians because their beliefs are incredibly boring.

>>6587288
>Just because he responded to it, doesn't mean that he was right.

Just this statement shows you haven't started Hegel and have no idea what he's about

does Hegel have anything to say about posting shitty threads

>>6587303
I feel that there's an inherent factor in hegelian philosophy that feeds the power structures of it's time, just like post-modernity got extra promotion because it fed the neo-liberal landscape where each group is isolated and can only effect it's own limited space and should feel happy with that or how it validates the implementation of free market logic in intellectual fields. Similarly Hegel is defending euro-centrism, I'm not saying this as a butthurt third worlder wishing the empire hadn't visited, it's just that you can separate him from the powers that turned him into an intellectual icon.

>>6587315
>I don't ever experience scientism in my personal life
Are you a solipsist? Philosophy professors at my university literally have to preface any lecture concerning skepticism with "Now, I don't want you to take this the wrong way...."
Not to mention how much of a pain it is outside of the academic setting. The average man thinks science is the end all be all of knowledge and discussion.
>And I hate Christians because their beliefs are incredibly boring.
How would you know? You've revealed your ignorance of it in past threads.

>>6587339
>The average man thinks science is the end all be all of knowledge and discussion.
I love how unscientific that idea is. One of the pillars of science is constant correction, just because something seems 100% correct right now it doesn't mean it's the end all of discussion for ever and ever.

>>6587309
lol no I don't talk all that much during sex

>>6587325
Okay, what you're saying doesn't change him for me though

>>6587339
I'm probably not the same Otis as the one you're used to.

And no, I'm not a solipsist

>>6587347
Just hang out with people who are literate in statistics, because that's the category of whom will understand how modern science functions

The science of convincing someone starts when you stop working to convince people, and instead live as such a pillar of thought that people approach you to learn. Then their minds will be ripe for thought.

>>6587424
>I don't talk all that much during sex
well, in 4chan character i can imagine that being extremely hot, like making love in body and mind. but irl it would be pretty obnoxious after a while i guess.

>>6587431
>'m probably not the same Otis
you're role playing as another namefag? why?

Why did Hegel have to write like a faggot?

>>6587453
ΟΥΤΙΣ what happened to the patricians pledge? How far did that get?

>>6587347
that's not "unscientific" because that's still knowledge entirely gained from science. you can't gain any valid knowledge outside of empiricism really. only meandering questions.

>>6587298
>political stance because I don't
I thought you're a fascist in the vein of Gentile? But yeah, I wouldn't tell people that, either.

>>6587471
>you can't gain any valid knowledge outside of empiricism really
How did you gain this piece of knowledge?

>>6587486
lmao is this true. is every tripfriend ever on /lit/ a fascist

also please do not learn anything about our tripfriends ever, and if you do learn anything pretend not to remember it

>>6587486
I'm a political person but why should I devote myself to an idea?

>>6587507
I know I know, they want people to give them attention, so if I remember shit about them, they win. That being said, both his actually decent understanding of Hegel and his inane ramblings about how real fascism totally has never been tried appeal to me, for different reasons.

>>6587470
What is that?

>>6587457
for the rascality therein

>>6587454
I might try it, sounds like fun actually

>>6587544
You just said you aren't? Are your apolitical stance and your political stance mere moments of a universality?

>>6587213

>God is the Absolute

“[T]he whole talk about the absolute, is nothing but the cosmological proof incognito. This proof, in consequence of the case brought against it by Kant, deprived of all right and declared outlawed, dare no longer show itself in its true form, and therefore appears in all kinds of disguises - now in distinguished form, concealed under intellectual intuition or pure thought now as a suspicious vagabond, half begging, half demanding what it wants in more unpretending philosophemes. If an absolute must absolutely be had, then I will give one which is far better fitted to meet all the demands which are made on such a thing than these visionary phantoms: it is matter. It has no beginning, and it is imperishable; thus it is really independent, and quod per se est et per se concipitur; from its womb all proceeds, and to it all returns; what more can be desired of an absolute?”

--Based Schoppy

>>6587561
Going by the literal Aristotelian term, politics is the philosophy of the polis, or just the philosophy of interaction. I'm very much into playing politics, but I don't hold allegiances to ideas. Mostly my politics are self interested.

The other one of me is the fascist, I'm the Hegelian/Stirnerian ΟΥΤΙΣ.

>>6587577
Schopenhauer did believe in absolutes, pain/pleasure being noumenal access to one's own body. The Absolute was just will, which he saw as a sort of one in all things. I'm not sure where you're quoting it from though.

>>6587605
>Hegelian/Stirnerian
So instead of going full fascist, you just linger around in the subjectivist/voluntarist lobby. I see why you're stealing his name then, you're like the same person at different points of their development. How you could go from absolute spirit to stating your case on nothing is beyond me tho.

>>6587174
Are you telling me to read Hegel, and come to the same conclusions you did, or that he did? Because this post is kinda sloppy. Kinda like, ya know, the guy whose name rhymes with bagel.

>>6587626
I don't commit to either idea yet. I'm infatuated lately with Hegel because he has very good insight, but I have no idea what I'll think of his philosophy eventually. He's on top of his game though, he recognized and explained many ways of thinking that are just too simple or are not good that are still commonly used today. And Hegel was at least honest in that he recognized that the start of good philosophy comes from an impression, and intuition from substance. Nietzsche recognized himself the foolishness of appealing to absolutes and called his own work polemical, Hegel says that simple, intuitive philosophizing and edification don't satisfy our desires, etc.

These appeals to unreason as a starting point I very much find true to myself. I'm sympathetic to Hume's sentimentalist ethics too.

People overemphasize the difference between Stirner and Hegel. They're very similar in many ways, and believe much of the same things. Zizek and Stirner are two of the only Hegelians I have read who don't make the mistake of presuming Hegel's end within their own philosophy; unlike Marx and even Feuerbach. They instead are smart enough to recognize they don't have absolute answers.

In any case, listen to Zizek's lectures on the limits of Hegel. There's a great moment where Zizek discusses Hegel on obedience; Hegel believed you should be obedient to authority if you are a citizen. But Zizek notes that Hegel said, you should only do this if the state actually treats you like a citizen, if the state alienates (alienation in Hegel is fascinating) or estranged you, you're effectively not a citizen and they have no right to stop your revolt.

That's not too far from Stirner's attitude towards unions; "I'm loyal as long as they meet my ends." Many of Stirner's insights are like this, very similar to Hegel. But Stirner is still very fascinating in his own.

>>6587640
Hegel's own conclusions mostly. Hegel really doesn't like most philosophers.

If you get far enough into the preface to the PoS to get to his criticism of formalism, you will be delighted. Hegel is sharp and funny there.

>>6587645
I love you.

>>6587645
>pitting Zizek against Marx
Bro...anyway, your body is ready for the Marx treatment, in case you haven't already taken it.

>>6587659
I'll get to Marx eventually, but it's not impossible to defend Hegel against Marx. And Zizek is a good philosopher in his own right

>>6587650
I love you too

>>6587613

Wille is different from Hegel's Absolute because Schopenhauer's philosophy proposed a double-aspect theory of reality, namely wille and representation. The wille gets its qualities through inverting those which belong to representation. The thing in itself is thus resolved as something more than the mere x Kant left us with. Hegel's Absolute is something else, namely what Schopenhauer calls it: 'nothing but the cosmological proof incognito.'

>Schopenhauer: 'But where does it come from, your Absolute?'

>Hegel: 'Haven't I already said it is the Absolute? That will do, upon my soul.'

>>6587613

Wille is different from Hegel's Absolute because Schopenhauer's philosophy proposed a double-aspect theory of reality, namely wille and representation. The wille gets its qualities through inverting those which belong to representation. The thing in itself is thus resolved as something more than the mere x Kant left us with. Hegel's Absolute is something else, namely what Schopenhauer calls it: 'nothing but the cosmological proof incognito.'

>Schopenhauer: 'But where does it come from, your Absolute?'

>Hegel: 'Silly question! Haven't I already said it was the Absolute? That will do, upon my soul.'

>>6587679
I haven't read any Hegel but this thread has sparked an interest. What would you recommend I start with and do you suggest a certain translation?

>>6587684
I haven't got yet an impression from Hegel that the Absolute is necessary, rather that he's optimistic about it and believes humans are inclined to believe in it. Do you have a source for this reading of Hegel?

>>6587174
but reading Hegel shows just how hegelian Stirner is in the end with his dialectical method

so what if he "responds" to anything? why does it matter? you're an arrogant cunt and you're probably insufferable in person

Can someone please tell me what Hegel thought about things? Please.

>>6587689
The AV Miller translation of the PoS is fairly popular. I've heard it has a few mistakes or weak translations but it's a good place to start (like Kaufmann for Nietzsche). On top of that you need commentary. I like both Sadler's Half Hour Hegel lectures on YouTube (I'd recommend Sadler over any other internet philosopher group). I also have the Hegel Reader by Houlgate. Consuming all three is enough in itself and it will go slow.

You should also be familiar at least with a bit of Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Schelling/Fichte.

You will find that everyone who reads Hegel will recommend different commentary. There are no absolute authorities on Hegel. So, just accept that often you're getting readings and works on Hegel that will be contradicted in some ways.

Other than that, Hegel's writing will seem absolutely frustrating and confusing. Reading it is difficult but not impossible, you have to get used to how to read him. But many sections will always seem nearly impossible to decipher; that's why the commentary is nice. What you'll find eventually is that his weird writing is often a bit simpler than it seems, you just have to be in the right state of mind for it to flow properly. It's just weird. Anyway good luck.

>>6587697
Yes, it will. Stirner's language even sounds like Hegel's at times.

>>6587703
It's virtually impossible to bullet point Hegel. But he's a guy who tries to get rid of many stupid things in philosophy, such as reductionism, and tries to make philosophy "scientific" (don't dwell on that word, it has a weird meaning for Hegel), but also to make philosophy work for you and to actually answer the things that really matter for us.

He's like a rigorous continental philosopher sort of.

>>6587689
Also, when you're first working through the preface, you'll read lots of stuff that makes no sense. That's fine. You're supposed to read the entire work before it all makes sense. So don't get too hung up on things you don't get yet, but similarly don't forget to review them.

>>6587704
I appreciate your response and will make use of it. I have not read of the individuals you suggest I have prior knowledge of so I will wait before tackling Hegel, although the strange quality you've suggested appeals greatly.

>>6587679
But that's not what Zizek does, defend Hegel against Marx. At least in my impression, Zizek's deviation from marxist orthodoxy consists largely in in lacanian faggotry, not in his appreciation of Hegel, which is par for the course among marxists.

>>6587221
try again by incorporating the buzzword "self-consciousness" into your sentence fuckhead.

>>6587431
Otis I know is so ignorant of Christianity it makes responding to him pointless. He is also that fascist wanabee.

>>6587728
Zizek is much more Hegelian and much more interested in Hegel than Marx. I'd really suggest you listen to the lectures, "The Limits of Hegel" by him, you'll get his actual opinion on the subject. As well, his book, "The Sublime Object of Ideology", is basically a book on Hegel.

>>6587721
You can still glean meaning without reading them, probably, but it's all just a matter of degree. You should at least know them enough so when people talk about them in general, you're not completely lost (e.g., for Fichte, understand the intellectual climate he was in and what sort of things he generally talked about).

You could probably Wikipedia warrior your way to Hegel, if you're good at reading.

>>6587729
What?

>>6587739
I agree, talking about what you're unfamiliar with is only good if you're in the process of developing and learning, otherwise it's just a waste of time.

>>6587708
>But he's a guy who tries to get rid of many stupid things in philosophy, such as reductionism, and tries to make philosophy "scientific" (don't dwell on that word, it has a weird meaning for Hegel), but also to make philosophy work for you and to actually answer the things that really matter for us.
>He's like a rigorous continental philosopher sort of.
simply ebin

the more i read your posts, the less i believe you've actually read hegel
but then you must've because otherwise you wouldn't be starting all these threads
yet your posts are so shit and say almost nothing that shows me you know one thing hegel said
what kind of person would make aggressive threads about someone he hasn't even read?
a person who is very sick in the head

>>6587745
>What?

>>6587708
It sounds to me like being an obscurantist was his way of making sure that he'd be cemented in place among the great continental philosophers. There's absolutely no reason for him to write the way he does unless he was scared that people would poke holes in his substantiated opinions. ;)

>all this conjecture
>all this megalomania

>>6587755
..have you read Hegel yourself? If you're suggesting I should be able to stuff a comprehensive understanding of Hegel in a thread on 4chan, I'd suggest you're mislead.

I'll quote Hegel directly for you:

>In the case of a philosophical work it seems not only superfluous, but, in view of the nature of philosophy, even inappropriate and misleading to begin, as writers usually do in a preface, by explaining the end the author had in mind, the circumstances which gave rise to the work, and the relation in which the writer takes it to stand to other treatises on the same subject, written by his predecessors or his contemporaries. For whatever it might be suitable to state about philosophy in a preface – say, an historical sketch of the main drift and point of view, the general content and results, a string of desultory assertions and assurances about the truth – this cannot be accepted as the form and manner in which to expound philosophical truth.

There should be no doubt as to what he means. And he's not wrong about his own work here, either, there is no easy way into any of his ideas, you have to start with weak understandings and progress into better understandings as you struggle through his work.

>>6587768
hegel isn't hard to explain for someone who has studied him
what's the point of studying him if that's the kind of shit answer you're going to give
this guy sounds like he watched a couple zizek videos or something
zizek's hegel doesn't seem to have much to do with hegel as far as most of the literature is concerned
i could explain hegel in a couple lines and i'll do so in another thread

>>6587776
>I've supposedly studied him which makes me an expert on everything but I'm not willing to give any explanations on how Hegel is relevant to anything
You Hegelians are all the same. Yawn.

>>6587785
Uh, basically Hegel revolutionized all standards of viewing history, science, was the father of the progressive spirit in modernism and created a still practiced standard of practicing philosophy.

>>6587768
Hegel isn't an obscurantist.

>>6587776
Why not explain him then? If you have the answers, provide them.

I don't understand why so many people expect to be spoon fed Hegel, and mock you if you don't. Don't they realize what a poor, undeveloping dialectic that is? I thought we had some good liberals on this forum that knew how to investigate ideas on their own volition

>>6587792
they don't expect to be spoonfed, but they're tired of people like you who barely understand something shoving it in their face. seriously, if you think anyone's learned anything about hegel from you or expanded their view about hegel from your shitty posts in any way, you're seriously deluded
i suppose i must assume it's unintentional because you're some kind of genius, right?

>>6587792
Why should you devote yourself to an idea?
Because you care more about people than thinking about people.
Devoting yourself to the idea (and practicing it) that people should not be oppressed might just improve someones life.

>>6587797
I get you're angry, but I'd rather have you explain why I'm wrong, negate something I've said, rather than do what you're doing right now. I'd like to learn, but if you're just here for the thrill of typing angry words, then I'm leaving.

>>6587242
oh god, are we really going to do this?
it's all different perspectives. there is no final answer. hence why no system can end all systems.

bertrand russel argued that every system might have an element that is not explainable within that system. he was talking about why there are so many fields of mathematics, because euclidean mathematics could not explain everything and neither could his or any of then ew systems. but they existed because they were useful for different problems.

>>6587799
>Devoting yourself to the idea (and practicing it) that people should not be oppressed might just improve someones life.
>appropriating sense data with another entity
>appropriating the appropriation of an entity with importance

>>6587799
That's what you're saying Hegel is about, or are you commenting to me directly?

>>6587804
Hegel is not a perspectivist. He is not Wittgenstein.

>>6587802
i'm trying to motivate you to say one thing of value about hegel
but i guess i'll just have to do that instead

>>6587809
You asked earlier on "Why should I devote myself to an idea?"

Yes I was referring to you.

>>6587690

You'll have to excuse me being lazy as fuck right now.

1/6

>>6587817

2/6

You seemed to ignore me the last time you posted in my own fucking thread,
but I will ask a question, even considering it is what I have falsely appropriated as "unlikely" that you reply:

For what reason, as I have gathered, OYTIE, do you not consider yourself a "solipsist"?

My thought tends to rest on the assumption of "epistemological solipsism".

>>6587820

3/6

>>6587822

fuck off cunt I'm trying to post something relevant

>>6587824

4/6

>>6587826

5/6

>>6587829

6/6

>>6587812
that is where he fails.

>>6587815
Oh, well, if you take that logic seriously I don't have much to say.

>>6587822
>do you not consider yourself a "solipsist"?

If the world was created by my mind, then I would control everything. Clearly that's not the case.

Idealism past Berkeley has never asserted the solipsist case. German Idealism starts with the belief that everything in your mind, is of your mind, not that there isn't a world outside of you. It's just that the world outside of you is still just an idea in your mind. You don't access it.

It's basically agnostic about a form of general noumena, even though German Idealism directly rejects Kant's specific metaphysics of noumena.

As far as how I experience things, I experience other people as being something like me. As another self-conscious spirit. I can't really deny the visceral and immediate qualities of that event. Hegel is against "mathematical thinking" and "formalism" for this reason, for being systems that try to contain the world within themselves, and that's his criticism against Fichtean dialectics. He believes all philosophy needs expression and work on the real world to be of any meaning.

>>6587813
"saying something of value" is incredibly vague

>>6587840
Re:devoting yourself to an idea
Not a single retort?
You only want to reflect about the world? Doesn't that sound silly to you?
Have I misunderstood something?

>>6587833
He's not doing much in this section but contradicting Hegel in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel is decidedly against philosophy of intuition by saying, it's not even philosophy, it's just unconsidered life. Schopenhauer here is taking the opposite stance, clearly, and saying all first principles of reason subsume themselves.

However, you don't have to take Hegel seriously about the Absolute to glean plenty of meaning. And that book (Schopenhauer's early book) reeks of his ressentiment toward Hegel for being a more popular lecturer.

>>6587837
Hegel is merely optimistic towards it. But if you're a perspectivist, you've already found the absolute implicitly in your premises, and actually are rather contradicting yourself (because there must be an absolute beneath each perspective)

>>6587844
No, all I'm admitting is that I don't know the answers, and so I don't actually hold anything as true. I don't understand what's so complicated about not making a judgment out of intellectual honesty.

>>6587840
>If the world was created by my mind, then I would control everything
No, that is conjecture.
You observe what ever it is you observe and you can only know what is with in your mind.
That you can only KNOW IT TO BE IN YOUR MIND:
That implies quite evidently what is generally referred to as "epistemological solipsism".
This is not a metaphysical claim, it is an epistemological observation.
That is self evident.
Anything else is conjecture, in so far as I am aware.

>As far as how I experience things, I experience other people as being something like me
Only, "people" can be a categorisation of an animal, each one being different,
their difference being larger they are no longer people,
they are an ox or a cat or so.
Then do trees and spiders also have the same intricacies as this violent appropriation of the notion "people"?

>As another self-conscious spirit
Conjecture.

>He believes all philosophy needs expression and work on the real world to be of any meaning
Overcome the "other", I believe he says himself.

>>6587859
I'm not asking you to be specific. But as you said, you are a "political person". I suppose that means that you think about an engage in politics.
But doing this from a purely neutral standpoint seems to me to be impossible (i'm sure you agree on this) and immoral (not sure if you agree on this).

And I do think you know the answer to the question about whether oppression and concentrating power in a few people, who doesn't have the welfare of the majority in mind, is a good thing.

>>6587855
>you don't have to take Hegel seriously about the Absolute
ebik

what is the Absolute to you then if you think you can somehow elude it in his thought?

>>6587855

You're regurgitating faulty information that you've read on here. Schopenhauer did not resent Hegel for his success, but for his fraudulent approach to philosophy. This particular 'book' was in fact Schopenhauer's doctoral dissertation, written long before he applied to lecture alongside Hegel as university professor.

Educate yourself.

>>6587868
>Anything else is conjecture, in so far as I am aware.
Yes, everything is of your mind. That doesn't contradict any facet of phenomenology in general, because even if all of this is in my mind, that doesn't change how I experience anything.

>Only, "people" can be a categorisation of an animal, each one being different,
No, that is conjecture
>Then do trees and spiders also have the same intricacies as this violent appropriation of the notion "people"?
It's prima facie obvious that the phenomena of other people is of a different sort than the phenomena of the animal kind, but the distinction takes place in the reflexivity and objectification of the self.

>Conjecture.
Conjecture. It's the phenomenology of spirit, the pursuit of the absolute, not the a priori absolute justifications.

>Overcome the "other", I believe he says himself.
He talks about it in more than one section.

>>6587873
I do it from a self-interested standpoint, like I suggested. Of course, ridding oppression and the concentration of power (that's not mine) is good for me. That doesn't mean I'm devoted to that idea absolutely.

>>6587878
I agree before you even started posting that I don't agree with Hegel about his stance on reason.

>>6587877
Have you read Max Stirner?

>>6587891
>No, that is conjecture
That a person is an animal or simply another thing is conjecture,
but to single out what is similar to you and appropriate it with utmost importance is not simply because you appropriated similarity with importance for no reason?
If I am not mistaken, Hegel himself may consider, if he had been more thorough, the human as simply notion which is taken to be concrete,
like any other phenomenon.

>It's prima facie obvious that the phenomena of other people is of a different sort than the phenomena of the animal kind
No, it is not. There is nothing else to say on the matter.

>It's the phenomenology of spirit, the pursuit of the absolute, not the a priori absolute justification.
The symbols that brought us here, the doctrine which defined us,
no longer needs to define us and to assume that the text is the world would be stifling and unecessary.
Yes, this thread is about Hegel but Hegel is limited because he is dead and we,
in this discourse, can be more thorough.

>>6587897
So you would not be against oppression if you were doing the oppression? Why do you not hold anything as true? Is that a hegelian or a personal standpoint?
I haven't read him.

>>6587912
If you want to be a solipsist, go ahead, it's not satisfying to me and I don't really care to think on it.

>>6587903
just tell me what the Absolute is and I'll leave you alone

>>6587915
I am going through EPISTEMOLOGICAL solipsism.
My thought generally rests there.
I some times appropriate metaphysical assumptions as the truth in my drunken state,
and true solipsism may come in to it.

>>6587916
The truth in the world that underlies all substance.

>>6587914
It's a Stirnerian standpoint, and a personal standpoint. I don't hold anything as true because I'm not smart enough and don't know enough to claim that. Self-interestedness is a substantial policy, it doesn't need reason to operate.

>>6587923
Well, Hegel doesn't attempt to refute solipsism directly in so far as I've read, except in that it's an insufficient view and we demand more from philosophy.

>>6587929
Last question (from me atleast): Do you think that anybody is "smart enough" or is truth just not for us?

>>6587941
>Do you think that anybody is "smart enough" or is truth just not for us?

Hegel is optimistic, I'm not so much. Part of the problem is, at least for Hegel, absolute truth is not really expressible, you can't really say anything absolutely true, it's a much more abstract concept.

>>6587689
Start with Hegel by Charles Taylor. Reading it now—best secondary lit after going through my U library's Hegel section.

>>6587269
>other processes
You don't get how Hegel's dialectic works at all. There's only one process. Hegel doesn't write about capitalism, he writes about freedom.

>>6587948
>absolute truth is not really expressible, you can't really say anything absolutely true, it's a much more abstract concept

not hegel

>The truth in the world that underlies all substance.

not hegel

>>6587708
>tries to make philosophy "scientific"
literally the opposite. He was a romantic, not a scientist. He believed in art.

>>6587242
Is that really you, OYTIS? Did you fuck up this badly or is someone impersonating you again?

>>6587957
>(don't dwell on that word, it has a weird meaning for Hegel)

>>6587956
nice reply, thanks for posting it...

>>6587962
it's just irrecoverably wrong on all levels

but i had to make sure

time for me to make a non-undergrad thread explaining hegel

>>6587965
I'm looking forward to it.

>>6587325
>I feel that there's an inherent factor in hegelian philosophy that feeds the power structures of it's time
Every philosophy does that. Marxism supported the USSR. Catholicism supports Italy. Lutheranism supported Hegel's Prussia more than Hegelianism did.

The point of his philosophy isn't that every nation needs to be like Europe, it's that at the time he wrote Europe was becoming free in a way that freedom had not been known before.

>>6587645
>Zizek and Stirner are two of the only Hegelians I have read who don't make the mistake of presuming Hegel's end within their own philosophy
Zizek only doesn't do that because his reading of Hegel is wrong.

>>6587933
>it's an insufficient view
To suffice what?

>we demand more from philosophy
Observation of what may be appropriated as a "demand for some thing more" may indeed occur,
but there is no natural inclination toward it that "we" have, in so far as I am aware, unless we take the PoS as dogma.
Provided there were, then I will find it if it is necessary, considering I have an inclination toward it,
which I am not even knowing myself to have.

>>6587859
You probably think that makes you deep but no one is even asking you for answers or truth claims, just substantial opinions about a philosopher

>>6587972
you might learn something, kid

>>6587987
Just make the thread instead of being an insufferable know it all.

>>6587703
Basically this:
He's a pantheist who identifies the world with God. The world is in a process of moving away from matter towards mind/spirit. The reason that the philosophers of the last two thousand years have brought up so many contradictory doctrines is not because man is prone to error, but because the universal spirit/mind has to develop itself by bringing up contradictions in philosophy, art, culture, civilization. Contradictory philosophies, arts, cultures, civilizations, come into contact and synthesize into new philosophies, arts, cultures, civilizations. This is leading to the end of history (eschatology) where all the philosophies, arts, cultures, civilizations of the world will fuse together into the one universal spirit/mind, and this mind/spirit will rule forever. It's basically the mysticism of the "new world order". |Teilhard de Chardin, a French guy, also preached this doctrine in different words. It's basically a revival of ancient gnosticism and pantheism but in a new direction.
From a Christian perspective it is the religion of Antichrist and the preparation of the "great deception" that will cause so many to worship Antichrist. Significantly, Napoleon, a figure of antichrist himself, was an inspiration for Hegel who he saw as an embodiment of the "world spirit".

>>6587992
>The world is in a process of moving away from matter towards mind/spirit
I do not think so.
I inferred what he referred to as Spirit/ Geist was actually the mental faculties.
Geistliche Behinderung in German is Mental disability.
Geist is german for either Spirit or Mental Faculties.

What he means with Spirit is the age old dichotomy of Mind/Body.

I just realised,
aside from some horrible chapters about negroes and mongoloids toward the beginning of the The Ego,
Stirner is so fucking right about every thing and Marx ruined his reputation because he proved leftism is pseudo-egoist BS.

>>6587992
this is basically right. nice

>>6587996
yeah, but mind comes out of nature and becomes us. then we become self conscious and reflect on ourselves.

>>6588006
>mind comes out of nature and becomes us
True.
Mind is an objective natural occurence.

>we become self conscious and reflect on ourselves
I became self conscious, although there is no necessity to be that.
There is no necessity to reflect, either,
and I some times rest on the conclusion that it is a fruitless affair, any way.

>>6587248
This sounds profound but I am not entirely sure what is meant by it.
Does anyone understand?

>>6587992
it should also be noted that Germany has a long tradition of pantheistic mystics

>>6588023
I always wondered how Schopenhauer was so acquainted with Indian thought.
Was that a thing in Germany at the time?

>>6588027
I think that was a European thing in general at the time. The tradition of German pantheism is much older than Schopenhauer. See: Eckhart.

>>6588018
>There is no necessity to reflect, either,
apparently there is for you right? all those threads?

you're in crisis all the time because you're alienated from the absolute

i'm not sure where you are in the dialectic, but you're clearly dissatisfied

you've negated everything but yourself as a point in space. can't be further from the absolute than that as a human honestly

>>6587992
"Pantheist" is basically right but too simple.

>>6588018
>I became self conscious, although there is no necessity to be that.
Who cares about necessity? This is a contingent life.
Reflection is something that minds do once they're at a certain point whether they want to or not. It isn't necessity, it's habit and instinct. Reflection's fruit is Reason.

>>6588034
also see spinoza

he just doesn't have the added caveat that the god in question becomes god only by knowing himself (hegel)

but he does think that we are all parts of god

>>6588043
>apparently there is for you right? all those threads?
It was necessary at the time.
It is not objectively necessary.

>you're in crisis all the time because you're alienated from the absolute
False, I may observe what I appropriated to be a "crisis",
although it is not occurring "all the time", or at least I am not knowing it to be.

>you're clearly dissatisfied
I may observe what I appropriated to be "dissatisfaction",
although it is not occurring "all the time", or at least I am not knowing it to be.

>you've negated everything but yourself as a point in space
I may observe what I appropriated to be a "point in space",
although the notion of it is not always being observed and needn't,
nor must I always be negating every thing but myself,
my negation being a necessary occurence within the history of causality,
not any thing which is chosen by me,
although I may falsely appropriate some thing I took as concrete and referred to as "choice".

>as a human
I may appropriate sense data with a notion of one particular notion taken as concrete to be of a higher importance than another,
although it is only a thought adventure and does not necessarily relate to things as they are.

>>6588048
>I may observe what I appropriated to be "x",
>although it is not occurring "all the time", or at least I am not knowing it to be.

Why do you always respond like this? Your phrasing is really awkward, I'd take you seriously if it were better.

>>6587987
Link the thread, I'll accept being wrong, but I want to read what you have to say.

>>6588046
>Who cares about necessity?
I may fluctuate between caring and not, being in a constant state of caring, or never caring.

>Reflection is something that minds do once they're at a certain point whether they want to or not.
There is no necessity for this to occur.
I may fluctuate between reflecting and not, being in a constant state of reflection, or never reflecting.

>habit and instinct
Habit and Instinct are a necessity, if they occur within the history of causality.
>Reflection's fruit is Reason
A's fruit is B.

>>6588047
I think the philosophers I resonate the most with are

Stirner
Schopenhauer
Spinoza

although I have not read enough of Spinoza,
my general understanding of the ideas he purports lead me to believe that they are similar to my own.

>>6588050
Apologies.
The communication failed.

>>6588050
he's just trying to radicalize descartes' method of doubt to give you something really really minimal

it might be just word games, but until i can sort out exactly how, i think it's a fruitful exercise

He's a Platonist who attributes way too much importance to the material world. The Absolute is the One, the dialectic is the Ideas, and the individual is the individual.

Hegel attributes less significicance to the state than Plato does. If you read his history, it differs from Plato's conception of a cycle of governments only in that H. claims it's linear; that is, he adds a Judaeo-Christian element to the Platonic/pagan ontology of time. Unlike Augustine, however, Hegel was a Lutheran; therein lies the only difference between Plato and Hegel.

>>6588064
So does every other philosopher between Kant and Descartes. You know that Hegel begins mostly from Kantian premises, right?

>>6588051
i was writing something but this guy summed it up already
>>6587992
i wasn't going to present it in that way, because it makes it seem mystical, but there is a more common sense understanding that isn't at the same time deflationary to his ontological claims

>>6588069
I don't see how what I said contradicted that. Can you point out specifically the mistakes I made?

>>6588068
i was talking about twinshia

as for hegel, he continues the history of philosophy after kant, so in that way he takes kantian premises (he lived in the time of kant's influence) but his real ontological _premises_ are pantheistic ones that already posit nature as a whole

>>6588075
>absolute truth is not really expressible

actually, the absolute is always expressible

napoleon, for example, was apparently one of the expressions of it

i mean this is hegel 101

>>6588076
Yeah you're basically right, didn't realize you were talking about the trip. I think pantheism is an oversimplification of Hegelianism, though.

BUT WAS HE RIGHT

>>6588081
How do you mean "expressible"? I mean specifically that it can't be spoken, or memified, instead, it is a product of arduous and long set unveiling.

Is there anything else?

>>6588090
You don't think of the word "expression" in a broad enough sense for all that Hegel puts into it, m8.

>>6588090
why can't you just say "napoleon is the absolute"

you can, hegel did

also, it doesn't need to be long and arduous because we live in the now

history is long and arduous but if the dialectic moves tomorrow it'll seem natural to us

most of what you say is wrong and i don't care to see you slink out of more shit

>>6588092
Okay, I didn't even know Hegel had a technical use for that word. I haven't worked that far. Thanks.

>>6588095
Alright well thanks for the reply but no thanks for your shitty attitude.

>>6588081
Wittgenstein begs to differ. There are three options it seems: we have no access to it, we have access but can't express it (either because it is intangible by nature or because language is limited), it does not exist. I would count it existing and being expressed in the world but being indifferentiable from untruth as a mix of being unable to express it (complete expression of complete truth could not lead to misunderstandings. I suppose you could see it as a shortcoming on the receiving end, virtually there is no difference but it can still be argued that an absolute level of expression would surpass these shortcomings) and us having no access to it (self-explanatory).

>>6588111
The notion of absolute knowledge is just that, a notion.
The adjective "absolute" describing a negation from subjectivity from which we can never be free.
Knowledge is just thinking appropriated as knowledge.

>>6588106
look man, i get it
you want to be "the hegel guy"
but it's annoying as fuck, because you shoehorn him into everything

to be honest, the first thing you learn when approaching hegel is that he doesn't even care about philosophical problems per se. he just looks at history and comes up with patterns after the fact. he's a philosopher not because he wants to solve some problem but because philosophy is a self-reflective enterprise that gets at the heart of being (which is a big claim he just _assumes_ from the beginning)

you might quotedrop or paraphrase shit he actually says but it means nothing to anyone else the way you put it. when someone tries to ask what you mean by it, you just say hegel is too hard to explain. in reality, it's not. and once you do, you realize it comes with all this pantheist baggage. people aren't going to care as much when you put it that way rather than just the appeal to the authority of the name hegel.

lastly, if what you really want is some non-metaphysical method of finding patterns in the historical development of thought, then don't even mention hegel, because you've kicked away all the ontological underpinning of what he has to say. the only reason he is entitled in his own system to say philosophy and history has self-developed towards the absolute is if there is an absolute. and no the absolute is not a normative idea. the absolute is the real becoming of its own self-reflection.

if it's just some shitty method of saying philosophy seems to have developed (like some analytics say about hegel) then don't even name drop him like there's something profound, because you'd need to make really good historical arguments why one thing came after the other

it seems to most people history is a series of random events, and that's probably what it is.

>>6588111
i doubt this has anything to do with hegel, but why don't you rephrase for good measure

>>6588137
>confining discourse to description of a text or texts

>>6588114
>>6588114
That may or may not be true, as an example of a subjective non-absolute statement. Just in case I'll specificy that what is meant by absolute knowledge has little to do with the human concept of knowledge, a case of imperfect expression. Perhaps essence, ding an sich or Dasein are better expressions. Perhaps what you've said still applies but as it is not definitively more true than other possibilities, and I personally am unable to stomach a world limited to triviality and absurdity, I will refrain from making that commitment.

>>6588122
I'm not "trying" to be anything, I just want to talk about Hegel. Stop being a prick, seriously, you know more about Hegel but that doesn't warrant your attitude.

>>6588144
>I personally am unable to stomach a world limited to triviality and absurdity, I will refrain from making that commitment
You are damned either way.
In this situation, you turn your head from any thing which you randomly appropriate as true,
thus already absorbing the notion that the whole endeavour is trivial and absurd.
You are already ruined and there is nothing you can do about it.

>>6588144
>Perhaps essence, ding an sich or Dasein are better expressions
? Nice worddropping

What do you think about the Hegel section on the still unfinished (but still not dead) /lit/ philosophy guide ΟΥΤΙΣ?


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit?pli=1#

Is it Fascist approved?

>>6588146
i barely know anything
but i know what zizek says is just him trying to smuggle his original (and better) ideas under the authority of the name hegel
and that's one of the most annoying things about continental philosophy that they fetishize these names so much
and that's what you're doing

i've watched you annoy others too by coming into their thread and telling them to read hegel like it's the bible, so don't act like i'm coming out of nowhere

>>6588022
I have no context, the splinter could well be the "Splinter in you eye, beam in mine" proverb of Matthews 7.

A splinter, a hampering something that you are blind to, a beam perhaps, covering your vision and blinding you by a degree, if it's a fine big beam in your eye you might not see much. With the beam blocking your vision, only a small portion of your visual cone is unobstructed, your mind must construct out of that the whole of your vision. You mind will not allow you to see that there's an obstruction, this being the very nature of the proverbial splinter. Taking the (insufficient) data and streching it out to fit the whole of the reality tunnel, the mind keeps busy. This could be the 'magnification'. The bible verse suggest that the beam is already seeking the mote, and pretty succinctly describes the law of projection.

>>6588168
Thank you.

>>6588022
The thing that authorities tells you gets in the way of your understanding of the world is the best tool with which to understand the world, I guess.

Profundity isn't usually a good quality in philosophical language, btw

>>6588164
Then, first post, try explaining why I'm wrong and explain this to me. Don't drag out the discussion because you're intent on "proving" a null point and insult the other person. Deal with your personal aggression by attacking the source instead of being miserable on 4chan.

>>6588176
Thank you.

>>6588081
The absolute is implicated in all expression. The absolute is the expression of all things expressed. "I AM THAT I AM"

>>6588177
>Deal with your personal aggression by attacking the source instead of being miserable on 4chan.
ebin

you're the one who made this euphoric thread

where you not looking for replies?

>>6587174
I already have, Hegel is the greatest philosopher of all time.

>>6588177
Plz reply to

>>6588160

>>6588177
You don't understand. The OYTIS personality is irritating from the beginning. The entire function of your name is to point out that you identify with a pretentious faggot who decided to start a reading group on 4chan. Pretty much all that OYTISes do is post blocks of text from the Phenomenology and fail to provide either adequate context for others to undersrand the text or proof that they understand any aspect of speculative idealism. Every time one of you people calls Hegel an atheist or dismisses the concept of the Absolute as not central to his thinking, or make any other kind of stupid mistake that anyone who paid attention to Hegel's thought and not just to hisclaoms to the truth of his texts, you prove to the rest of us that your posts aren't worth reading, and yet you engage us in arguments that don't involve the points you bring up all the same.

For the love of fuck, keep posting if you want but stop using g that fucking name. The original OYTIS is an insufferable cunt and you're no better.

>>6588181
Calm yourself.

>>6588151
It is most likely true that I am damned either way and ruined in a sense but I'm not sure information was conveyed effectively. I did not appropriate it as truth in this case, my disagreement is both intellectual and a survival mechanism (which may or may not affect intellectual ability). I do not believe your choice - it does not exist, as it is merely a combination of words with no known correspondent in nature - can be proven to be superior to the other two. You would have to prove that what is known is all that can be known, what can be known is the limit of existence and all that can be known can be expressed. I might be mistaken but until I realise I am, I will remain agnostic about all three.

>>6588190
There was an advisor to Mussolini who was described as an "Hegelian", if I am not mistaken.

>>6588191
He's alright.
Who cares?
Bad discussion is better than no discussion.

>>6588210
Okay.

>>6588211
i'm literally replying in the most natural way possible
it would take effort for me act like i really respected the guy
so who cares? not me

>>6588222
Okay.

>>6588157
*concept dropping is often useful in conversation, there is no need to type a wall of text about concepts that are most likely familiar to the reader under other names. Listing several increases the possibility of recognition and highlights the common element(s).

>>6588137
does hegel being wrong have nothing to do with hegel? or is this a vip parrot hegel thread?

>>6588239
*gone wrong.

>>6588234
well hegel's absolute definitely isn't the thing-in-itself (literally the thing the absolute is posited to overcome)
and it definitely isn't dasein (Heidegger) either since, again, for him human experience is fundamentally limited

>>6588239
why don't you just rephrase what you said?

trying to pit wittgenstein's assessment of a phrase like "expressing the absolute" against Hegel's is a weird move, but clarifying where they differ on the matter can teach us about both

>>6587499
kek

>>6588246
The "absolute" is essentially the same as the "unattainable beyond" which Hegel, if memory means anything, claims to help the reader overcome,
as far as I can tell.

>>6588246
so.. his absolute isn't really absolute? is philosophy limited to claims by x judged only by the system x made up to preserve everyone's exact definitions so their weak arguments don't fall apart? might as well play the lottery to choose your one and only, just like religion

>>6588260
look, i don't want to say the way people put this is "wrong"
these words have fluid meanings
but really the way you put it and the way the guy put it don't seem to suggest the right image at all
first of all it just seems "plainly wrong" to say it's unattainable
it seems even more wrong to say it's beyond anything

the absolute for hegel is pure interiority or immanence (like a deleuzian plane of immanence) (zizek made this connection). the absolute is always here. just think of pantheism. if the absolute is god, then he is always there. but we begin as finite negated beings and then move towards it by being more and more self conscious until what we think and what we are is the same.

so yes we are moving towards something (modernity/progress). but we are also already that something and we are only moving within ourselves. we are just alienated from ourselves.

>>6588273
Let me phrase it differently, in the form of a question:

"What value does the notion of the Absolute have?"

>>6588211
He's not alright. I care. You're just as bad, if not worse.

>>6588265
>is philosophy limited to claims by x judged only by the system x made up to preserve everyone's exact definitions so their weak arguments don't fall apart?
a nicely worded question

i would answer "yes" but that it's like a process of education

you can't jump from beginner stuff to advanced stuff and skip the intermediate stuff

so when you're a beginner, you don't have the whole picture, but you're still at your very best (so you're absolute)
when you're intermediate, you're still not ready for the advanced so you're absolute
and so on and so on from there

the "limits" and the "preservation" is the act of negating parts of the absolute. when you think you know something, you have actually jsut negated everything else to "preserve" what you know. eventually, the limitations of that will shine through and you will move on to bigger and better things

>>6588253
Wittgenstein dismisses discussion of the absolute by claiming that it is senseless to talk about what can not be expressed by language. The difference being that he believes the absolute can not be expressed. Neither claim is sufficiently supported, as far as I'm aware.

>>6588276
progress

in my (truly) personal opinion

if you want to think progress, you need something like the absolute

and possibly in a way exactly analogous to the way hegel puts it

personally, i don't care about progress, so hegel has no value to me

>>6588284
Okay.

>>6588301
Okay.

>>6588301
How can one be taken seriously if the base of their argumentation is wanting to think something? If he needs progress to justify the absolute and the absolute to justify progress, isn't it just an elaborate circular argument?

>>6587315
>I work at a university.
wow their standards must be pretty low if they hire a retard like you

>>6588295
i really have to look into it, but i literally believe this whole passing over metaphysics in silence thing does not apply to hegel's absolute because as i said it is an immanent absolute

i also believe that there are analytics currently working today seeking to ally wittgenstein and hegel

>>6588295
What does Wittgenstein's dismissal of metaphysics have to do with discussions about what Hegel thought? You don't even understand the concept, you might be able to if you'd get away from language a little bit like most philosophers did before the mid-20th century.

>>6588316
>How can one be taken seriously if the base of their argumentation is wanting to think something?

well, to be frank, there is data suggesting some kind of progress. even today in our post-meta-narrative times the idea is still around.

i emphasized wanting because twinshia was asking about value of the idea as if the idea was something to be used to accomplish some arbitrary task.

and even looking at hegel that way, i think he has unraveled something very basic about the structure of the idea of progress. in that, perhaps an alien civilization has its own hegel who tried to think progress as internal to the whole.

>>6588319
Don't mind him.

>>6588338
As you can probably tell I'm largely unfamiliar with Hegel and using you as an introductory educational tool (much appreciated). How is progress defined in this context? My struggle is that progress implies a direction that is known to be "right" and the only way to know such a direction is the absolute, no? I might be missing something that is expressed in his process of thought, I suppose I'll see.

>>6588337
It was mostly a reminder that a philosopher stating something does not make it the truth, as the opposite was expressed as a factual statement. However, with sufficient context what I was replying to could be seen as more of a quote, rendering the reminder useless. I'm not particularly fond of language myself.

>>6588406
IMO people are too quick to dismiss concepts as linguostic constructs on here without actually thinking them through first. I was just pointing out that Hegel is worth reading to familiarize yourself with his ideas whether or not he was right about anything. Judging from some attitudes ITT, particularly those attacking him from a philosophy of language standpoint, quite a few people are too quick to dismiss him and miss the point of his thinking entirely while bypassing all of his actual content.

>>6588432
If you are referring to me,
I have read PoS.
If you are referring to Philosophy of Right or his other writings,
then perhaps I will read them in the future.
There are other things I wish to read beforehand, however.

>>6588450
Not you, fuck off.

Why have the worst tripfags in the history of 4chan come to this board in the past 6 months?

>>6588388
so you're probably still thinking of things in a kantian way where you're a subject looking through a screen a some object

what has to be admitted is that this isn't really progress because 1) we are always at an infinite remove from the thing-in-itself 2) the thing in itself might not even be there (fichte)

the only true way to make progress is for the subject to become the object. to walk two moons in its shoes.

this is the idea that i think precipitates the necessity of the absolute.

that is because you must presuppose that the subject and object are in fact one from the beginning. this oneness is the absolute. and realizing this oneness is what progress is.

what cleaves the subject and the object? a negation. and object is what the subject isn't. that is why you negate the negation to arrive at the unity of subject and object. the famous phrase refers to just this. once you have negated the negation and brought a unity between subject and object, the dialectic has moved forward and you are one step closer to full unity between subject and object.

notice that this structure is discrete. it is not "asymptotic" progress like people say today. that's kant.

>>6588465
> in the past 6 months

>>6588432
>>6588432
I agree with the general trend you observe, although in my case it is not my intention to dismiss him but gain insight on what I don't understand at first sight. I tend to engage with ideas in the form of statements rather than questions, I see how it would seem dismissive. I do value the patient replies and intend to read the original texts.

>>6588466
>that is because you must presuppose that the subject and object are in fact one from the beginning. this oneness is the absolute. and realizing this oneness is what progress is.

Different anon here. For more on exactly this concept and what exactly the higher unity that'd present in every Hegelian syllogism is I'd suggest looking into Plato's Parmenides and interpreting the One as something which brings things to completion. It's a Pythgorean concept at its root.

>>6588466
Ah, I understand! An excellent explanation, thank you for introducing me to this charming thought process.

>>6588465
Okay.

>false appropriation of negative qualities with anyone who falls in to a specific category, in this case: those who carry a "tripcode".

Or alternatively, you could just spend your time criticising other people,
pretending you are going to make a thread in which you elucidate some thing overly vague and then never do just that.

>>6588484
Will do, thank you.

>>6588507
I'm criticizing you and OYTIS in particular. There have been good tripfags, you're both just terrible posters.

>>6588497
in reality, there are many subjects and many objects and all are cleaved from each other via negations
reality as we experience it is nothing but a web of negations shrouding the absolute whole
when we resolve one dialectic, it is really resolved, we have truly learned something, but there are many more negations to resolve

finally, the way this dialectic occurs is natural
a crisis presents itself via the conflict between subjects (his ethics/politics) and the conflict between subjects and objects (his epistemology) and, though things may never change, the way our history has crystallized the primary opposition at hand leaves the space open to a world historical figure (like antigone or napoleon) to seize the moment and bring about the unity required for progress.

but again, we have just resolved one negation and there are countless others

>>6588507
i decided not to make a new thread and just explain stuff here and i wasn't attacking otis for anything other than his style

as for you, i think you're a very creative individual and you stimulate my mind and my cock

>>6588535
I disagree, but I can not stop you from posting irrelevant unphilosophical opinions.

>>6588544
Thank you.

>>6587174
what is feuerbach in relation to hegel? i worked backwards from stirner to feuerbach and i'm finding they are mostly foils of each other.

where did you start on hegel?

>>6588538
It seems almost like a logical explanation of the essence of Buddhism, particularly Hesse's take on it. Siddhartha seems to express many of these ideas in poetic form, the imagery with the river and “We are not going in circles, we are going upwards. The path is a spiral; we have already climbed many steps.” struck me. Very pleased to see these ideas expanded and connected with other ones I've fancied, I feel like I've learned something valuable.

>>6588507
I appreciate your presence and ideas, I'm sure others do as well. Surely just a juvenile rebellion against identity stemming from the local culture

It's because Hegel is wrong. Sure he "responded" with poorly justified arguments and ludicrous posturing.

Is Hegel the memiest of meme philosophers?

>>6587239
I've been looking for some sort of philosophical or scientific book that explains music in some candid way.

It's amazing to think that music is, in basic terms, simply vibrations of the air. Yet we have somehow managed to create this incredibly complex language, that takes you on an abstract journey through time.

Does OP ever make any actual arguments or reference Hegel's texts ITT or does he stick to the usual "you probably just don't understand Hegel" shtick?

>>6590517
What do you think? It's an OYTIS