[ 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: 160 KB, 504x703, 3754-p copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17048124 No.17048124 [Reply] [Original]

He was a Hermetic sage, and deeply religious. I laugh at Marxists and Anglo analytics like Brandom who try to have Hegel without religion.

>> No.17048175

>>17048124
I laugh at you for thinking Hegel was an emanationist like those filthy Hermeticists, Gnostics, and others. For Hegel explicitly recognizes that emanationism is wrong in the Science of Logic, and his dialectics is the complete reverse of emanationism. Whereas the emanationist begins with a perfect ultimate reality, and gradual inferior emanation from it, Hegel begins with pure being, indistinguishable from pure nothingness, and dialectically develops it til the perfect Idea is reached. Pick a side, but don't pretend these aren't opposed systems.

>> No.17048184

why can we not just take hegels word for it? he wrote theology, he called himself a beleiver. I am happy to let hegel speak for himself

>> No.17048189
File: 10 KB, 266x400, 9780801474507.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17048189

>>17048124
>>17048175

>> No.17048421

>>17048189
>t. has not read the Science of Logic
>t. does not understand Hegelian dialectics' inversion of emanationism

>> No.17048540

Why is it so hard for people to accept that he was just larping? All those opaque grandiose pages long sentences were just his way to get famous and earn some money. He's no Kant, stop pretending he is.

>> No.17048574

>>17048175
>Pick a side, but don't pretend these aren't opposed systems.
the beginning of Hegels system is not the end-point of the others, the fulfillment of the spiritual path also leads to the perfect or perfection

>> No.17048654

>>17048574
The thing is, the Hermeticist (like the Neoplatonist) saw that there was a cosmological order and a soteriological order. The former is the order of descent, how things came to be: from perfection, downward. The latter is the order of ascent, how people can find salvation: from imperfection, upward. The ultimate end goal is reunion with the divine origin. Since there's two orders (ascent, descent), and they're opposite directions, it's not surprising that Hegel would match one of the directions, because there's no third option. The thing is, his cosmology (his metaphysics) matches the order of ascent: it is the inverse of the hermetic cosmology or metaphysics. That's the sense in which the two are different, and also the sense in which the two are similar. They are IMPORTANTLY different, and rather unimportantly similar.

>> No.17048658

>>17048540
>anyone I don't like is LARPing

>> No.17048669

>>17048658
Yes, but you got the implication backwards. I don't like them because they are larpers.

>> No.17048769

>>17048540
I don't think he was larping because when I was 18 I developed a system that I fully believed and years later now I don't believe it and am developing my own new (hopefully more respectable) system, but that older one has more in common with Hegel's way of making weird logical connections and going from A to B to C, so I have no trouble believing Hegel believed everything he did sincerely, because I come from a place that helps me understand how someone could be like that.

>> No.17048783

>>17048540
There's evidence to believe Foucault and Althusser were larpers doing it for money because they both got caught making up false things they actually admitted to having made up. Then you have Deleuze who conceives of metaphysics as liberally inventing new concepts on purpose, and people like Land enamored with hyperstition. Now all these people are better candidate larpers than Hegel. Hegel I feel believed everything he claimed.

>> No.17048824

>>17048783
Those I also believe were larpers, but what makes Hegel distinct from them? For all I can see it's the same style of "philosophy". All style and no substance

>> No.17048863

>>17048824
See >>17048769
I wouldn't just say someone is a larper without evidence. Foucault and Althusser could be saying things they believe, but the making-shit-up-and-admitting-it is real suspect. Deleuze and Land are conceptually telling us they endorse bullshit-making so that's that. Hegel does neither. I can understand what he's doing. His main idiosyncracy, carried over from Schelling and Fichte, is this: they play around with the fact that the negation of identity and the negation of predication are both negation in ordinary language, and by using it, they're able to generate seeming antinomies that shouldn't be possible, and this allows their dialectic to go in its spiral procession. The thing is I used to do things like that myself so I know where they come from. Predicate logic hadn't been invented yet to clear things up about negation.

>> No.17048900

>>17048863
These philosophers always use the word "negation" in extremely odd ways but it seems to indicate a specific process. I am quite ignorant on this subject, so do you mind if you could enlighten me on it?

>> No.17048917

>>17048769
>Hegel's brilliance is reducible to a mental obsession
Anon..

>> No.17048925

>>17048917
>hegel
>brilliance
Anon........

>> No.17048939

>>17048900
One of the things they do is think of negation as something you apply to objects or things, not just to predicates. An example of the latter would be if I said "The apple is not red." But the former is stuff like, thinking of the negation of an apple itself. And you see this as early as Fichte, and I think it's ultimately traceable to Kant. I forgot to say that a possible genesis to they're weird use (or abuse) of negation ultimately lies with the ambiguities of the copula "is" in language. See, "is" can mean identity between two object-terms, or it can mean simply subsumption of the first (object) term under the second term, a predicate. You can do a lot of fun playing around with "is" and "not" and get interesting unorthodox antinomious results. I have a feeling that's what Fichte did, and Schelling and Hegel just followed through with it.

>> No.17048977

>>17048939
But the negation of "the apple itself" would be straightforward if we transform it to "the apple exists". Then we could just say "it is not the case that apple exists". What am I missing?

>> No.17048980

Hegel (pbuh) refuted western civilization by means of occult chants which slowly lulled the west into the celestial pleasure of BBC

>> No.17048992

>>17048939
>But the former is stuff like, thinking of the negation of an apple itself.
So, thinking of all that is not an apple? Or thinking of turning an apple into a non-apple?

>> No.17049003

>>17048977
You're not missing anything anon. Like I said, they didn't possess predicate logic. So their word games seemed a bit more convincing to themselves. They didn't know there was a way to diffuse the funny antinomies that got created through their word games.

>> No.17049289

>>17048175
I mean this makes sense I guess but I don’t get the bickering over it, didn’t Hegel just sort of “reverse” emanationism by explaining how an indeterminate Absolute isn’t truly complete at the beginning (Pure Being) without demonstrating the full implications of its development?

>> No.17049307

>>17048124
I completely agree OP, been reading Magee’s book and it makes total sense. I never understood why people interpret Hegel so strongly in a non-religious, non-metaphysical sense. They just go “hehe le Hegel was a troll and use complicated language to trick ppl into thinking he was metaphysician but was actually just trying to show how we can learn from history” or some bullshit. The dude situated himself among a line of metaphysicians and was influenced by a broad range of thinkers. He saw himself as completing the process of Western metaphysics logically beginning with Parmenides and concluding most concretely with himself. In my view, Hegel’s whole project was essentially showing why the Hermetic All acts.