[ 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: 51 KB, 512x345, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16469355 No.16469355 [Reply] [Original]

> praises hegel
> doesn't realize his philosophy is the most radical form of atheism ever conceived
the absolute state of christcucks.

>> No.16469357

>>16469355
for those who never read hegel (most of you): hegel's core concept is the denial of the being, the transcendence, the "beyond". which is much more atheistic than a simple dawkins tier denial of the judeo-christian mythology.

>> No.16469358

>>16469355
>only knows left hegelianism

>> No.16469359

>>16469358
>takes right hegelianism seriously

>> No.16469360

>>16469357
keirkegaard denied being as being primary

>> No.16469365

>>16469359
>doesn't acknowledge it at all
seethe

>> No.16469367

>>16469358
im not talking about politics, but metaphysics. the idea the there is no being beyond becoming is the very essence of the hegelian system.
which is confirmed by his utter despise for the mystics and the oriental "wisdom".

>> No.16469369

>>16469367
for instance he calls mysticism : children's sugar loaf

>> No.16469371

>>16469360
where

>> No.16469379

>>16469367
Right hegelianism is interested in a different interpretation of Hegel. That it has immediate consequences into politics is uninteresting. It's just that he was asserted to be promoting religion as Absolute spirit rather than the promotion of the mechanism of Becoming like lh

>> No.16469382

>>16469371
Kinda the whole leap of faith and deny reason as a means to have a relationship with God and denial of Hegel thing

>> No.16469388

>>16469367
Either way he was Christian

>> No.16469399

>>16469379
??
both right and left hegelianism agree on the identity between being and becoming and the denial of anything "ouside" consciousness
the main difference is of a sociological-political-ethical order. "religion" means nothing. either you assume a transcendent perspective on conscious reality or you assume an immanent one. hegel and all hegelisms are for the latter.

>> No.16469404

>>16469399
>ouside
*outside
>hegelisms
*hegelianisms

>> No.16469431

>>16469357
prove it with textual evidence

>> No.16469439

>>16469399
Can Absolute spirit not be interpreted as God?

>> No.16469449

>>16469439
Not him.
Pretty sure he sees God as a kind of highest reality. He has his interpretations of christian trinity.

>> No.16469461

>>16469439
nope because god transcends consciousness and the becoming, while the hegelian absolute IS consciousness and the becoming. therefore, hegel's philosophy is technically atheist.

>> No.16469484

>>16469461
No I mean does Hegel view God as Absolute Spirit? If he views him as primordial to his whole process it's kinda odd to not include him and it makes a stronger process than Absolute Spirit

>> No.16469489

>>16469449
How does he interpret him in his philosophy?

>> No.16469512

>>16469484
the christian god, if i understand well your question, for hegel, is a determinate concept within the human consciousness, or, if you prefer, as a part of a "stage" of the idea (that of the absolute spirit).

>> No.16469522

>>16469512
I haven't read him besides cursory overview but that seems very sacrilegious and he was very Christian. I'm not sure why he'd denigrate God if he was Christian

>> No.16469526
File: 171 KB, 615x854, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16469526

>>16469489
As with everything written by that fucker, it can be interpreted in many ways, and applied in even more. You can also see it as a divine dialectical process of the entire universe (Spirit *is* at the core of his philosophy, after all).
I'm far from being competent enough to talk about Hegel, please don't take my words for granted.

Pic rel is from his Difference essay.

>> No.16469538

>>16469522
because he was a good theorist more than he was a good christian
same shit with Kant, who theorizes the impossibility of knowing God and then has to invent a cope for his own philosophy.

>> No.16469539

>>16469522
he was nominally christian because of the atheismusstreit which fucked up fichte's career. and hegel loved a lot his chair. also there are some romantic influences on him which made him see atheism as an unaesthetic thing.

>> No.16469546

>>16469526
Fair enough I'm not Hegelian even in cursory viewpoint.
>>16469538
I'm not at all a German idealist. I think the enlightenment's focus on epistemology was a mistake

>> No.16469551

>>16469358
Left Hegelianism are the philosophers after Hegel. The stuff about God is all in his writing

>> No.16469555

>>16469388
Not in anyway the traditional sense. Its more of an athiestic type of Christianity similar to Spinoza

>> No.16469573

>>16469546
>I think the enlightenment's focus on epistemology was a mistake
its an inevitable question that previously had not been realized or muffed away by assumptions about God.
You cannot sidestep problems about epistemology. Similarly after the realizations of the linguistic turn you can also not sidestep problems with language.

>> No.16469577

>>16469355
Aside from Hegel not being atheist at all, I rarely see 'christcucks' praising him beyond citing him as a reference.

>>16469555
>traditional sense
Aka the strawman you imagine every Christian fits.
What traditional sense? Tradition in the sense of the continuous revelation in the church? In that case, he indeed isn't, by being protestant.

>> No.16469597

>>16469573
Sure you can.
>how am I real
Doesn't refer to epistemology except derivatively.
>how does a for loop in python work
It's a split so you can't ignore the problems presented in python, or c. Or you could just study logic, Turing machines, Boolean Algebra then work down and see where Python screwed if it did.
Start from metaphysics, work to ontology and you have an answer in epistemology.

>> No.16469600

>>16469555
he was far more atheistic than spinoza. in fact, he accuses baruch of "acosmism" which hegel deems typical of the oriental (including jewish) "thought". acosmism means : believing in a transcendent reality, which swallows up all the finite determinations like a "black hole" (hegel's words) thus annihilating them.
for him the only reality is that of human consciousness, hence his "motto" : man is god to man. a pious christian will never talk like that.

>> No.16469609

>>16469600
>a "black hole" (hegel's words)
Really? Where does he say it?

>> No.16469643

>>16469609
encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences, vol. 1, ch. 151. actually he calls spinoza's god ( = the being)
> a universal negative power, an obscure, shapeless abyss swallowing up every determinate content.

>> No.16469644

>>16469431
>since philosophy is exploration of the rational, it is for that very reason the comprehension of the present and the actual, not the setting up of a world beyond [das Aufstellen eines Jenseitigen] which exists God knows where - or rather, of which we can very well say that we know where it exists, namely in the errors of a one-sided and empty ratiocination.
Rechtsphilosophie, Vorrede

>> No.16469648

Based Kojèveposter:
Hegel was an anthropo-atheist.

>> No.16469650

>>16469597
The whole problem is that you require both an epistemological framework and language to even think and speak about metaphysics.
These are the key insights of the epistemological and linguistic turn, they show problems with constructing a metaphysics to get to an epistemology/language.
to use your example for a somewhat flawed analogy, it will be very hard if not impossible to reconstruct C not just with python, but from 'within' python, i.e without any knowledge except what python offers you

>> No.16469656

>>16469355

No, it is the most radical, i.e. that most orthodox, form of Christianity.

>> No.16469667

>>16469650
Yeah no shit because Python is written in C, like epistemology is written in metaphysics.
Needing to refer to Epistemology to understand reality is enlightenment garbage retroactively refuted by Plato. You can be wrong anon but reality is still the same

>> No.16469678

>>16469546
German idealism is philosophy on the continent overcoming the epistemological focus for the first time.

>> No.16469682

>>16469678
Idealism is pertaining to ideas. He uses a reconciliation of epistemological bents to assert antinomies. It's garbage and was rightfully subdued by analytic philosophy

>> No.16469696

>>16469643
that was my quick translation from the german. this is a published one in english:
> Substance, as it is apprehended immediately by Spinoza without preceding dialectical mediation-being the universal might of negation-is only the dark, shapeless abyss, so to speak, in which all determinate content is swallowed up as radically null and void, and which produces nothing out of itself that has a positive subsistence of its own

it think not atheist, let alone new-atheists, ever spoke so contemptuously of god.

>> No.16469715

>>16469696
because it doesn't deny God. It can still assert God isn't substance but ultimate becoming. It's an odd interpretation but keirkegaard believed a version of that and it was more in line with Europe that asserted deism by necessity

>> No.16469722

>>16469667
Thats the point friendo, we can only know though our epistemological apparatus. If that apparatus has flaws or limits our knowledge is bound to those flaws or limits.

again from within the programming metaphor, you start off within python and have to somehow move backwards from it. \
stuff like C, turing machines, etc are not intuitively available. Plato does not help with this because he doesnt chart this problem. He constructs a C from within python, not realizing python's limitations.

>> No.16469729

>>16469722
Yes it's a bit of effort but somehow we managed to construct math, or C, or the Turing machine, or logic, despite only having python.

>> No.16469737

>>16469722
Knowing math, like some basic calculus, you still mess up on math problems. This being said you're not math and yet it still exists and we still find it. Without any knowledge of epistemology.

>> No.16469744

>>16469715
> god is the becoming
which precisely is the atheists' position. no being, no transcendent god, no ontology, no mysticism, nothing at all beyond the alleged (and inexistent) "limits" of the human mind : just the becoming.

>> No.16469746

>>16469722
I don't care how much you screw up, it still takes those as axioms and if I want to know anything more about epistemology than is already discovered, I use ontology. We don't have epistemic certainty. It's a terrible field

>> No.16469752

>>16469744
Becoming is an ontology just a bad one. It's certainly not atheist and if you say ontology to an anti theist you'll be forced to explain it to him for an hour so he can deign you with an opinion because his turbo reason self God and such. Atheism is extreme individualism. Hegelianism is a step up. Still not a fan of it though

>> No.16469773

>>16469729
now imagine if we double checked the derivations from python to C and found out that even if we do the derivation perfectly, we find some contradiction, in our reconstruction of C, or it turns out we cannot define everything in python with our reconstructed C. it turns out what we thought was C from the perspective of python might not actually be C. Thats what the epistemological turn does.
>>16469737
>>16469746
Its not about if you can screw up or not, its if even if doing everything perfectly in your derivations, you find certain inconsistencies, purely through the limitations of your derivations.

>> No.16469776

>>16469752
>Becoming is an ontology just a bad one
the affirmation of the reality of becoming is the very opposite any theistic or mystical or strictly religious ontology ( = falsehood of becoming, reality of being) , retard. this is a core point you can't stress, bend, or re-eleaborate in hegel's system. you have to just accept it.

>> No.16469779

>>16469461
This only proves that the whole hegelian philosophy was just an ontological argument

>> No.16469789

Hegel is only atheist through Christianity, rather than against it though. For him, it's a phase of Geist's historical process, which is real. If Geist sheds Christianity, then so much the better for Geist, but it will always retain it in its memory.

>> No.16469822

>>16469773
Who cares, you're making up problems where they don't exist. Reality is universally correct. Your reconstruction can be shit. How do we test if it's shit? By appealing to the laws of the universe, in this case ontology. You can't even begin to start with epistemology without having ontological commitments. You can't write Python without having C written out first.

No that's crap you made up to act like you're epistemological important. I don't care if you screw up I don't even care if you're human. If you're interested in reality, of which the you is part of, you can't use epistemology except as a roadblock to learning about ontology or metaphysics. Your epistemology is naturally and effortlessly derived from your metaphysics. Anything more and your epistemology is false.

>> No.16469827

>>16469779
the ontological argument is about arbitrarily "ontologizing" a single determination of yours (i imagine a perfect god, but it can't be perfect if i imagine it inexistent, therefore it must exist), hegel's philosophy is about "de-ontologizing" everything which is beyond consciousness and thus make the latter coincide with reality. they are different, but related in their immanentism. indeed, the ontological argument is much less theistic than you believe. if your god is something which goes beyond human understanding , then the ontological argument is not for you. by it, god must have a physical extension and it belongs to the knowable universe. i mean the "price" to pay for the ontological argument is relegating god to the realm of human consciousness.

>> No.16469830

>>16469776
I don't think God can't be Becoming in a metaphysics. Just not the correct one

>> No.16469837

>>16469830
indeed hegel's "metaphysics" is godless.

>> No.16469854

>>16469837
Fine but you need to push out how God can be becoming then work out how that would make God then see if it's how God would be

>> No.16469857

>>16469822
Im not saying ontology is completely impossible or doesnt exist. im saying ontology has to be derived through epistemology, which comes with certain caveats.
This is actually what Hegel tries to do and it certainly has some merits (although i have to admit im not too familiar with the nuances of Hegel)
I guess the big point im trying to make is that this epistemology is really really important if you want a good ontology. and those that neglect it get a bad ontology.

>> No.16469861

>>16469355
>takes philo from an ugly guy seriously

ISHYGDDT

>> No.16469866

>>16469854
when hegel or for that matters i say god is the becoming, all we are saying is that the becoming is the only reality, while everything one could deem outside it is actually a phantom and an error of thought.

>> No.16469869

>>16469857
How can you take ontological commitments to prove those commitments are true? It's a circle.
A good or bad epistemology can't comment on ontology. If I say an ontological dimension is monist, epistemology can't comment on it. It's a field which just isn't capable of talking about it. If I want to talk about properties of an object in mereology, whether you piss, shit or have some vodoo awakening, it doesn't matter. You're either correct or wrong in the manifestation of properties in objects.
Physics takes math as an axiom. Physics cannot deny mathematical fields. It can't comment on them. If a math axiom doesn't work out it can't dream up new ones or say that axiom is wrong. It's derivative. Your order of precedence for fields is circular.

>> No.16469876

>>16469866
Well saying that, it could be interpreted as the manifestation of saving humanity and their souls on a march to revelations or heaven in particulars

>> No.16469905

>>16469876
by that reasoning you could interpret bertrand russell as a father of the church.
but what hegel actually loves about christianity is the idea of the incarnation of god in the son (= the world and specifically the humanity) which to him is an overcoming of the oriental mysticism.

>> No.16469920

>>16469905
russell was anti hegelian. He was a metaphysical realist who tried to get rid of orders.

>> No.16469923

>>16469869
Surely you agree that before you can 'know' your ontological commitments, you must have some way to know them?
that although ontology comes first, we must learn of it through an epistemological system?
>A good or bad epistemology can't comment on ontology.
yea this is what presents all the difficulties.
we look at epistemology and find some problems preventing us from getting to the ontology.
we're stuck in a circle as you said. Hegel then tries to reconstruct an ontology through an epistemology anyway that somehow incorporates this friction.

>> No.16469926

>>16469920
it was an example. i know very well he is an anti-hegelian (but he was an hegelian for all his youth and it shows).

>> No.16470025

>>16469923
I think existemology is just a framework. Whether you have epistemology doesn't matter because you're still conscious. I figure you mean in my terms that how can you know ontology without consciousness and by simply saying consciousness is a part of creation. There's nothing really special about it and I can ignore consciousness and its mishaps to still study an objects being. Let me try an example, if I transfer to an ai, and can't use reason or empiricism to learn more about the universe I'll still have to contend with its issues and even if I glean truth it wouldn't matter what epistemology I use, in fact I could have millions, because the focal point is on ontology or metaphysics. Having more or any epistemology doesn't change or imply you'll learn more or anything about it.

I think it's just best to ignore epistemology and have it be a natural offshoot of your metaphysics and same with ethics. If you start with epistemology or ethics you can't criticize it. It's just taken as hors d'oeuvre

>> No.16470027

>>16469926
that's fair

>> No.16470176

>>16469682
>Idealism is pertaining to ideas.
So you never even tried to understand what was meant by German idealism? TBF I think its a misnomer and a bad name for what should just be called classical German philosophy.

>> No.16470214

>>16470176
I don't think it's a misnomer

>> No.16471391
File: 100 KB, 1080x1080, 1588.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16471391

Hegel describes what must be true for consciousness when it swallows God or the transcendental function like a phagocyte. Hegel was a demon.

>> No.16472938

My understanding of Hegel's God was it pretty much was identical with the Absolute, as is to an extent argued here, though this article does distinguish them: https://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Hegels_God

>> No.16472966

>>16469357
So Nietzsche really was the synthesis between Schopenhauer and Hegel after all?

>> No.16473575

>>16472938
>(Herself, itself, She or it, etc.)
Fucking cringe

>> No.16475076

>>16469355
Philosophy is a religion onto itself.

>> No.16475101
File: 27 KB, 358x361, 1322395628136.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16475101

>>16473575
>he doesn't know about the great mother and feminine principle

>> No.16475341

>>16472966
i think no, but he calls them the enemy twins.

>> No.16475572
File: 50 KB, 680x680, 1600641415526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16475572

>>16469355
religion is just autistic philosophy

>> No.16475650

>>16475572
Other way around

>> No.16475666

>>16475650
kek

>> No.16475668

>>16475650
>obsessed with rules (sins and virutes) and routines (fasting and prayer at specific times)
>repetitive movements (prostration) and phrases (mantras and prayers)
>lack of empathy (so and so are evil because, well, because they just are)

>> No.16476919

>>16469355
atheism? hardly. The guy believed in the spirit world and the world spirit. Literally. Not a metaphorical belief.
that isn't atheism at all.

>> No.16476952
File: 20 KB, 333x499, HermeticHegel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16476952

>>16469367
>his utter despise for the mystics
he was a German mystic himself, so i rather doubt what you're saying. Try reading pic related.

>> No.16477011

yeah. hagle tryes to make the trinity seperate from god accidentally.

>> No.16477048

>>16476952
he literally wrote the mysticism is the children's sugar loaf

>> No.16477053

>>16477048
>the mysticism
*that mysticism

>> No.16477091

ITT: retards
Hegel was a pagan

>> No.16477104

>>16477091
he mocks indians for worshipping cows and monkeys all the time

>> No.16477354

>>16469355
Hegel: Why Yes, I am a Lutheran Christian.
>What the fuck did he mean by this? Like when he said "I am literally a Lutheran Christian and lived that way my whole life and believe what Lutheran Christians believe." was he like an atheist or something?

>> No.16477466

>>16477048
>The mystical writings of Jakob Böhme had a strong effect on Hegel.[93]

>> No.16477535

>>16477048
Mmh guys, St Paul said that the Incarnation is scandal and madness. How are Christcucks ever going to recover?

>> No.16478027

Don't pay attention to Hegel on religion until you are acquainted to him dissolving epistemology.

>> No.16478049

he was christian. you can cope yourself into a stupour if you want, but he spent the latter half of his life on theology. if he was atheist, he would have called himself such.

>> No.16478680

>>16477048
Sauce?