H E G E L

[Anonymous No.14769498]

>tfw reading Guenon and Hindoos
>it's just an inferior precritical version of Hegel
>tfw reading Marx and Stirner and Nietzsche and Kierky
>it's just a dialectical response to Hegel
>tfw reading Lacan and Badiou and Zizek and Deleuze and Guattari
>it's just an opening up of an an incorrect interpretation of Hegel as a closed system
>tfw reading Kant and Fichte and Schelling and Schopenhauer
>none goes as far as Hegel
Is there any point of reading philosophy aside from Hegel? It's like he really does have absolute knowledge...

[Anonymous No.14769511]

>>14769498
Why exactly is deleuzes interpretation of Hegel as a closed system wrong? It would actually be very useful for me to know

[Anonymous No.14769534]

>>14769498
Hindu metaphysics is on such a higher level than Hegel that it makes one feel pity for the man

[Anonymous No.14769538]

>>14769534
Sure thing anon, whatever let’s you sleep at night.

[Anonymous No.14769546]

how can I come to understand this man's work?

[Anonymous No.14769557]

>>14769546
You can’t. No one understands Hegel.

[Anonymous No.14769568]

>>14769511
That’s not mainly what Deleuze’s interpretation of Hegel is about + Deleuze explicitly approved of systematism in philosophy

[Anonymous No.14769614]

>>14769568
Not exactly what I asked

[Anonymous No.14769731]

>>14769557
How can I understand him better?

[Anonymous No.14769746]

>>14769511
The relationship between Hegel and Deleuze is delicate, often it seems stark and often the two seem to even be saying the same thing. I recently ordered this book called Hegel, Deleuze and the Critique of Representation that is specifically on the subject.

[Anonymous No.14769779]

>>14769746
this, people who pretend they are nothing alike haven't read either. D&R is basically PoS sans absolute

[Anonymous No.14769812]

>>14769546
Don't bother, he's a hack

[Anonymous No.14769814]

>>14769779
there is no 'negative operation' in deleuze
no subject-object dualism or synthesis of opposites

[Anonymous No.14769824]

>>14769511
Deleuze is a system-building metaphysician, his primary problem with Hegel is Hegel’s insistence on analytical solutions (I.e. convergence towards an absolute) vs open-form systems that never “sublimate” into anything higher, but instead oscillate/undulate. Hegel’s big formula is X + Y = Z, contrast that with something like Yin/Yang or the Liar’s Paradox, which express mutual interdependence—these are the systems deleuze is most interested in.

[Anonymous No.14769828]

>>14769814
just going to post some quotes

[Anonymous No.14769830]

yeah absolute knowledge in the empty life of a society that is out of touch with nature, only actually relevant in an explicit form in the early stages of industrialization.

those who stay in touch with nature would laugh at those speculations.
those who dwell in a fully industrialized world would have no actual use for any of it.

[Anonymous No.14769839]

>>14769828

[Anonymous No.14769850]

>>14769839

[Anonymous No.14769864]

>>14769546
Hyppolite

[Anonymous No.14769867]

>>14769828
>>14769839
>>14769850
yes and?

[Anonymous No.14769882]

>>14769824
>Hegel’s big formula is X + Y = Z
what the fuck are you talking about? first, Hegel is totally against approaching his philosophy in this way as it defeats its purpose. second, if you needed to do something so vulgar, it's something closer to
>C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))

[Anonymous No.14769896]

>>14769882
what does C and n stand for there? i don't get it what's the purpose of using algebraic notation?

[Anonymous No.14769906]

>>14769867
difference is itself the inverted image of the negative, saying there is no negative operation is shallow because the whole of his system is differential operation which is simply a mirror image of negative operation. It's like saying "Aristotle doesn't believe in forms". While technically true with reference to Plato, it is practically false because Aristotle is deeply concerned with form. Same thing here. These passages are in direct conversation with Hegel.

[Anonymous No.14769910]

>>14769896
have you ever read Hegel? the C and n should be dead obvious

[Anonymous No.14769911]

>>14769498
never heard of him

[Anonymous No.14769917]

>>14769910
c for conciousness and n for negation or something like htat? i've never read hegel

[Anonymous No.14769921]

>>14769917
c for concept

[Anonymous No.14769967]

>>14769906
my dude, this discussion you've posted is a means of indirect demonstration of the internal inconsistencies of hegel's 'systematizing'. it also points out a possible mis-reading of the sophist, and recurs to plato an intent outside the history of philosophy as hegel interprets.
>we must consider whether or not the celebrated thesis of the Sophist, despite certain ambiguities, should be understood as follows: 'non' in the expression 'non-being' expresses *something other than the negative*.
as to inverstion--are you the image you see in the mirror? is the world alice explores through the looking glass not rather a monstrous deformation of the one she knows?

[Anonymous No.14769992]

>>14769967
did you read
>D&R is basically PoS sans absolute
and think I meant
>everything in D&R agrees with PoS except for the absolute
?
because obviously removing the absolute does something to the system (e.g. the negative becomes the differential). doesn't change my point, Deleuze basically rewrote the PoS without the absolute. this is what you get, Hegel through the looking glass.

[Anonymous No.14770027]

>>14769882
When I said X + Y = Z, I was referring to the fundamentally reductionist component of Hegel, the dialectic being the process by which two become one. You can add a bunch of Cs and C(n)s if you want but from a deleuzean perspective there’s only difference, the equation you attempted to supply is of the form X + Y = Z. Deleuze by contrast says that X and Y are orthogonal/cannot be fundamentally reduced into each other, there’s no matter-antimatter pairing that undergoes a dialectical process to sublimate into some absolute as in Hegel. They simply exist alongside each other and inform each other.

[Anonymous No.14770069]

>>14770027
>the dialectic being the process by which two become one
you are thinking of Fichte. Hegelian dialectics refer to the negation of the concept, which is always within the concept, negating itself, or, it becomes the negation of negation (determinate negation). the concept and it's negation cannot be reduced to one another either, which is why there is a movement to overcome (sublation)

[Anonymous No.14770145]

>>14769992
>everything in D&R agrees with PoS except for the absolute
this is just incorrect. it goes so far beyond just the exception of the absolute. read the passages you posted.
here are the relevant bits:
>Perhaps, however, we have reasons to say *both* there is non-being *and that the negative is illusory
>What does not return is that which denies eternal return, that which does not pass the test. It is quality and extensity which do not return, in so far as within them difference, the condition of eternal return, is cancelled. So too the negative, in so far as difference is thereby inverted and cancelled.
not looking good, man
you can't just plug and play these terms. and to another claim being made in this thread: deleuze is emphatically NOT a systematizer. the mere coherence between related concepts does not compose a 'system'; it is the base requirement for a 'rational' discussion.
a 'system' of philosophy implies a totality, a schematism between 'thought' and 'object' and thus a determinate end to thinking. this is 'absolutely' contrary to deleuze's own attitude toward philosophizing, which is the 'wild and savage creation of concepts'. it is open-ended and playful, the opposite of hegel's tragic perspective.

[Anonymous No.14770153]

>>14770145
are you really arguing against your own strawman? I don't believe that everything in D&R agrees with PoS except for the absolute, did you even read my post?

[Anonymous No.14770157]

it's not that simple;

[Anonymous No.14770159]

>>14770153
how am i to interpret your meaning otherwise? when you write things such stupidities as 'the negative becomes the differential' in deleuze, which is fucking retarded and wrong.

[Anonymous No.14770164]

>>14770145
>it is open-ended and playful, the opposite of hegel's tragic perspective
Hegel is very open ended and playful by the way, Deleuze fundamentally misread him, and I say this as someone who considers themselves a Deleuzian

[Anonymous No.14770169]

>>14770159
that's literally what Deleuze says, "Negation is the inverted image of difference". you seem deeply undereducated on this topic ano

[Anonymous No.14770186]

>>14770169
an INVERSION is not a BECOMING
and there is a purpose to the discussing the matter IN THIS WAY, which is to demonstrate, as deleuze says, the ILLUSION of the negative

[Anonymous No.14770191]

>>14770169
>>14770186
in the same way that your own image in a mirror is the ILLUSORY APPEARANCE of your 'self'
fuckin get it now, my man?

[Anonymous No.14770212]

>>14769557
The illuminati clearly do since they’re synthesising to great effect.

[Anonymous No.14770217]

>>14770186
>>14770191
>but negation and difference aren't the same!
I said that already, see
>>14769992
you are either arguing in bad faith or are literally this braindead, either way it's not worth it

[Anonymous No.14770235]

>>14770217
>this is what you get, Hegel through the looking glass
this is what i am refuting, you dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.14770258]

>>14770235
>refuting
having trouble with this word too? sorry anon, that was mean. I'll leave you to it

[Anonymous No.14770278]

>>14770258
do yourself a favor and google 'internal critique' or 'immanent critique'
read what comes up and maybe afterward you'll start to understand what deleuze is up to in the passages you posted
or just go read his analyses of lewis carroll
or don't
who fucking cares

[Anonymous No.14770317]

>>14769546
It is dialectic and it goes through history.

[Anonymous No.14770347]

>>14769882
your formula is even worse and proves that you haven't understood Hegel at all. OP's was much closer

[Anonymous No.14770357]

>>14770347
>Hegels big contribution to philosophy was a + b = c

[Anonymous No.14770375]

>>14770347
True. That equal sign is pretty bad in the second formula.

[Anonymous No.14770393]

>>14770357
nobody's said that.

[Anonymous No.14770426]

>>14770393
>Hegel’s big formula is X + Y = Z

[Anonymous No.14770434]

>>14770426
i said both are wrong, but at least OP's was closer. Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.14770435]

>>14770434
>nobody's said that.

[Anonymous No.14770488]

>>14770435
ok, you're stupid

[Anonymous No.14770637]

>>14769882
This is interesting actually. Both of these equations miss the point, but for different reasons.
>X + Y = Z
This misses the point of sublation, the other anon was right to say this is closer to Fichte's idea of synthesis, something which was not Hegel's contribution, but even this doesn't quite square as there is nothing in Z which you find in X and Y. maybe it would be better formulated as
>X + Y = XY
so far as XY constitutes its own variable and isn't strictly reducible to the variable X and Y.

>C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))
This is an okay description of determinate negation, although it can't go far enough to show hows this formula leads to a new C (C'). maybe better rendered as
>(C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) < C + ((C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) + -(C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))))
Obviously this doesn't work mathematically because it would basically reduce to
>(0 = 0) < C + 0
Where C = 0. But this is more of a limitation of mathematical notation than anything. For Hegel, the concept + its negation isn't simply C + 0 (or 0 + 0), as the negation of C is a 0 which is substantive, something which goes beyond 0. This is why Zizek talks about that which is less than nothing, as a negative which retains its own virtual content.

[Anonymous No.14770722]

>>14770637
lad?

[Anonymous No.14770999]

>>14770637
>(C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) < C + ((C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) + -(C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))))
so it's like that huh, I understand everything now

[Anonymous No.14771277]

>>14770637
hard mode:
http://www.thenewdialectics.org/hegeldiallog.htm

[Anonymous No.14771607]

>>14771277
what the FUCK

[Anonymous No.14771631]

>>14771607
MIke kosok's introduction to his work

· revolution vs the myth of consistency and identity

· THE FORMALIZATION OF HEGEL'S DIALECTICAL LOGIC

· Dialectics of Nature

· man and his non-linear universe

· THE DIALECTICAL MATRIX:
Towards Phenomenology as a Science

· the overcoming of marxism

· THE DYNAMICS OF PARADOX:
Phenomenological Dialectics of Science

· The phenomenology of fucking

[Anonymous No.14771637]

>>14769498
Derrida has many essays dedicated to BTFO Hegel.

[Anonymous No.14771690]

>>14771637
every philosopher post-Hegel does; eppur si muove

[Anonymous No.14771788]

>>14771631
do I read this first or Hegel first

[Anonymous No.14771799]

>>14771788
>first
you are a man and you live in a non-linear universe

[Anonymous No.14771814]

>>14771799
do I? is this Hegel or

[Anonymous No.14771824]

>>14770637
>(C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) < C + ((C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) + -(C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))))
>people write things like this thinking they have any meaning

[Anonymous No.14771827]

>>14769498
>tfw reading Kant and Fichte and Schelling and Schopenhauer
Fichte and Schopenhauer both expound on more than Hegel, Schelling is out done by Hegel. No idea what Kant is doing in this bunch.

[Anonymous No.14771870]

>>14769498
Foucault did the same History makes itself absolutium thing without being as vague. Albeit, it's not as expounded on as Hegel and it took several decades for someone to match him but, it's pretty much the same thing.

[Anonymous No.14771900]

>>14771824
How about:
>A < (C + (A + (-A)))
Where A is the process of determinate negation and C + (A + (-A)) is the resulting concept

[Anonymous No.14772457]

>>14769498
>retrospectively destroy your entire philosophy in two pages
nothin personnel kid
https://www.academia.edu/37072870/Translation_of_H%C3%B6lderlin_Judgment_and_Being.pdf

[Anonymous No.14772471]

>provides absolute knowledge
>knowledge = power
>looks like Sheev
Is George Lucas Hegelian?

[Anonymous No.14772690]

>>14769498
De Sadler stans this

>>14772471
The Dialectic is a path to many syntheses one might consider … unnatural

[Anonymous No.14772731]

>>14772457
>I am I
>split between subject and object
>the I cannot emerge without the split between I and I
if this btfo's Hegel, how fucking dumb could Hegel be??

[Anonymous No.14773676]

what do I have to read to understand this thread and don't say Hegel

[Anonymous No.14774075]

>>14773676
The Historical-critical Introduction to the Philosophy of Mythology

[Anonymous No.14774340]

I see the dialectic now

[Anonymous No.14775518]

bump

[Anonymous No.14775540]

>>14773676
Deleuze

[Anonymous No.14775900]

Hegel and Deleuze:

https://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/translation-of-the-introduction-to-veronique-bergens-lontologie-de-gilles-deleuze/

[Anonymous No.14776008]

>>14769498
>an opening up of an an incorrect interpretation of Hegel as a closed system
Modernist Hegel is probably the final form

[Anonymous No.14776063]

>>14769534
vivid demonstration, anon

[Anonymous No.14776907]

>>14775900
holy FUCK how can people write like this?
>Such as Deleuze defines it, the image of thought is this movement of pre-orientation which posits the quid juris / quid facti distinction by its construction of a plane of immanence that selects what is worth the pain of being thought, i.e. the infinite movement of a thought affined to chaos. Given that the Deleuzian image of thought posits its intuitive outline in contradistinction to those of phenomenological peace and dialectical reflection, it will be a question of problematising the Deleuzian problematisation of dialectical difference, a question of dramatising anew the overall encysted scene that situates Hegel as Deleuze’s condemned, and a question of interrogating a phenomenology viewed as the doxic overcoding of Kantian critique. In sum, it is a question of more closely juxtaposing a discursive assemblage that seeks to posit itself affirmatively without being opposed to its other (Deleuze) with a dialectical regime ensconced in the figure of exclusive disjunction that cannot be replayed by the force of decontextualising virtualisations (Hegel).

[Anonymous No.14776917]

>>14776907
just fucking say you're doing a comparative analysis of hegel and deleuze what the fuck what the fuck what the fuck
"the overall encysted scene"
just so repulsive

[Anonymous No.14777010]

>>14776907
Gay sophistry, larping. Who wrote that meandering drivel, a Frenchman?

[Anonymous No.14777378]

>>14776907
It's peak philosophical aesthetic.


>>14775540
https://mega.nz/#F!hmxg2ADT!BFrsqqEwFHCzIOKnWtJBUA
>"L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze" (English Subs)

[Anonymous No.14777404]

>>14776907
pretty good take

[Anonymous No.14777668]

>>14776907
>>14777010
Writing like that is a good way to prove you have nothing of value to say

[Anonymous No.14777680]

>>14775900
>ontology
That's one of the magickal bullshit words the indicate that whoever is writing is retarded. Here's some more:
>being
>spirit
>relation
>dialectic
>substance
>phenomena

[Anonymous No.14777724]

>>14776917
>>14777010
>>14777668
>>14777680
Plebs filtered hard

[Anonymous No.14778316]

>>14777724
bad writing is bad writing my dude

[Anonymous No.14779736]

Dude even explains the inconsistencies in the bible

[Anonymous No.14779740]

>>14769911
he's just some passing meme