[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 74 KB, 720x960, 1522272351347.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11071898 No.11071898 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/ ive got a genuine question

i dont understand hegel and havent read him, but, does the Absolute include the potential for not-being?? isnt that a particular contradiction that makes the Absolute impossible? How can the Absolute be the end of dialectics when it still holds a contradiction in itself?

>> No.11071931
File: 309 KB, 1584x1089, 1524340623107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11071931

>>11071898
Literally the first claim he makes in the smaller logic is that Being and Nothing are the same in that they both lack quality absolutely by definition. This leads to the central tenet of Hegel's phenomenology (maybe phenomenology in general) which is Becoming, the

>> No.11071933

>>11071931
Whoops
...process of coming into and passing out of being.

>> No.11071954
File: 27 KB, 300x209, schopenhauer3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11071954

>>11071931
>>11071933
>Being and Nothing are the same in that they both lack quality absolutely by definition
You're a cupidinous Charlatan, Georg

>> No.11071970

>>11071954
He's speaking of pure being here, which makes total sense. If everything is being, but can have contradictary qualities, then the most base aspect of being must be absolutely without qualities (in order to accommodate contradictory qualities). But if pure being is absolutely without qualities, then we find it comes to have the same definition that we give nothing. It's some of Hegel's more solid logic.

>> No.11071990

>>11071931
i liked this thanks
Can you explain me a little bit more on the lack of absolute quality of Being and Nothing tho?

>> No.11072000

>>11071970
ooo nice nvm >>11071990

>> No.11072002

>>11071970
It's not solid at all. Identifying pure being with nothing simply because they both lack qualities ignores the incontrovertible fact that the category of existence is the copula of a judgment of an empirically existing object. You can't say "pure being" is identical to "nothing" just because the former doesn't exist. It (being) may not exist as an object, but that doesn't mean it is "nothing."

>> No.11072050

>>11072002
That's an extremely glib take on Hegel's position. You do know I'm trying to boil this down for someone who has never read Hegel right? Don't use my explication as a strawman.
>The distinction between Being and Nought is, in the first place, only implicit, and not yet actually made: they only ought to be distinguished. A distinction of course implies two things, and that one of them possesses an attribute which is not found in the other. Being however is an absolute absence of attributes, and so is Nought. Hence the distinction between the two is only meant to be; it is a quite nominal distinction, which is
at the same time no distinction. In all other cases of difference there is some common point which comprehends both things.

>> No.11072071

>>11072050
Which reminds me how Hegel butchers Kant. He does exactly the thing Kant admonishes against in the criticism of the ontological proof; he considers "being" as "pure being" and separates it entirely from its purpose, which is to designate the character of an object.

>> No.11072104
File: 1.91 MB, 480x270, 1524376867829.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11072104

>>11072071
I don't think you've read Hegel...
>Becoming is the first concrete thought, and therefore the first notion: whereas Being and Nought are empty abstractions. The notion of Being, therefore, of which we sometimes speak, must mean Becoming; not the mere point of Being, which is empty Nothing, any more than Nothing, which is empty Being> in Being then we have Nothing, and in Nothing, Being; but this Being which does not lose itself in Nothing is Becoming. Nor must we omit the distinction, while we emphasise the unity of Becoming; without that distinction we should once more return to abstract Being. Becoming is only the explicit statement of what Being is in its truth.

>> No.11072126

>>11072104
>concrete thought
Next you'll post a passage about "intellectual intuition"

>> No.11072190

>>11072050
op here ive read some pages on Hegels lectures on the philosophy of history but yea idk Its pretty legible im afraid of jumping into things that will make me feel dumb for not understanding

>> No.11072219

>>11072050
I've never read Hegel, but just wondering if he's externalizing the concept of nothing, as in he uses "nothing" as a concrete concept that can interact with other concepts, or is he identifying nothing with the common concept of nothing as literally no thing, a void?

>> No.11072221

>>11072190
Phil of History isn't too bad, but it's not really his best stuff. His hardest work is probably the Phenomenology. Read the smaller logic (First book of his Encyclopedia) if you want an easier (still very fucking hard) in to his metaphysics. I still don't "get" Hegel, I don't trust anyone who says they do. Don't be afraid of getting wrecked the first time though. Actually that applies to all philosophy, if you don't get it it's not cause you're a brainlet, it's because you haven't read it enough.

>> No.11072228

>>11072219
He calls it an "empty abstraction"

>> No.11072301

>>11072221
i will take this advice