/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18477638]

>When evil is the same as good, then evil itself is not evil, nor is goodness good, but both have instead been sublated. Evil per se is the inwardly-turned being-for-itself, and the good is the selflessly simple. While in this way they are both expressed according to their concept, at the same time the unity of the two becomes clear, for inwardly-turned being-for-itself is simple knowing, and the self-less simple is likewise pure inwardly turned being-for-itself. – If it must thus be said according to this latter concept of good and evil (which is to say, insofar as they are not good and evil) that good and evil are the same, then it must equally be said that they are not the same but rather are utterly different

What the FUCK did Hegel mean by this?

[Anonymous No.18477644]

>>18477638
>What the FUCK did Hegel mean by this?
He was just trying to destroy the world with his retarded ideas. He succeeded.

[Anonymous No.18477652]

>>18477638
>Good and evil are the same but are utterly different in so far as good and evil are not the same
Whoever takes Hegelian dialectic seriously is utterly retarded

[Anonymous No.18477663]

>>18477652
Whoever takes Hegel seriously is utterly retarded

[Anonymous No.18477671]

I like what he has to say about time.
>¶257. The point that, as related to space, developed into volume also appears as itself indifferent, that is, unrelated to the quiescent next-to-one-anotherness of space. It marks itself off: “Thus posited for itself, it is time.”(die Zeit) Note well: notapoint of time, but Time itself, not a nowintime, but a principle of time. That the point is “posited””for itself”means only that, in the usual dialectical movement, it becomes thought-determined (or mediated) as an other. But because the point negates the indifference of space in the sphere of self-externality, it leaves space, in its inert side-by-sideness by the way. Thus arises time as distinct from space, as the other of space.

>¶257, Addition. Space is mere quantity: All its parts, even the termini,subsist—have only relative being—on the same footing. That is its defect. Its negativity is ineffective since it keeps falling indifferently apart: “Time is precisely the existence of this perpetual self-cancellation.” Here “difference has stepped out of space;” the point has actuality. Whereas in space, which is externality through and through, difference is always attached to the other, time is the “negation of negation,” the “self-relating negation.” It negates the indifferent negations of space and therefore becomes actually distinct from space. Space is “paralysed;” time is difference in its living unrest.

Just lol.

[Anonymous No.18477721]

>>18477638
>>18477671
Am I being trolled?

[Anonymous No.18477750]

>>18477671
>mfw there are academics who spend their entire lives trying to comprehend this gibberish

[Anonymous No.18477762]

Based and esotericpilled

[Anonymous No.18477769]

>>18477638
he had me in the first part, was ok in the middle, then he shat on my brain in the last part

I think I'm too retarded for philosophy

[Anonymous No.18477790]

Every civilization has their religious tradition, and every religious tradition has its esoteric mysteries. Western Civilization's religious tradition is rational philosophy, and its esoteric mystery is (not exhaustively, but primarily) Hegelianism.

[Anonymous No.18477802]

>>18477769
>>When evil is the same as good, then evil itself is not evil, nor is goodness good, but both have instead been sublated. Evil per se is the inwardly-turned being-for-itself, and the good is the selflessly simple.
This is how far I got

[Anonymous No.18477818]

>>18477790
>Western Civilization's religious tradition is rational philosophy, and its esoteric mystery is (not exhaustively, but primarily) Hegelianism.
Western civilizations esoteric mystery is neoplatonism

[Anonymous No.18477822]

>>18477818
That is classical civilization. They're connected in name only

[Anonymous No.18477824]

Reminder this is the guy who had the balls to make his last words "There was only one man who ever understood me, and even he didn't understand me."

[Anonymous No.18477844]

>>18477638
>>When evil is the same as good, then evil itself is not evil, nor is goodness good, but both have instead been sublated.
Oh no no no no
The great Schopenhauer BTFO'd Hackgel

>I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt. Leibnitz is particularly concerned to defend this absurdity; and he seeks to strengthen his position by using a palpable and paltry sophism. It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end.

>This explains the fact that we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful.

>The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.

[Anonymous No.18477847]

>>18477844
>The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain
Only materialists are obliged to believe that. Christians have always believed that not only does pain outweigh pleasure in the current life but the scales of justice will always tip toward evil until the second coming of Christ.

[Anonymous No.18477852]

>>18477847
Read the whole thing bro

[Anonymous No.18477854]

>>18477802
this is the most digestible part for me, it degenerates the more you read until its rock bottom.

[Anonymous No.18477856]

>>18477852
No. I refuse to read Schopenhauer, you lose IQ for every sentence you read of the tripe he dribbled out of his crusty wrinkled anus

[Anonymous No.18477858]

>>18477856
Then keep coping filthy christcuck.

[Anonymous No.18477866]

>>18477858
Evil is a privation of good.

[Anonymous No.18477872]

>>18477790
The real mystery is how so many PRETENDED to understand Hegel and how so few called them out on it.

[Anonymous No.18477884]

>>18477866
Therefore good is negative

[Anonymous No.18478039]

>>18477638
>Philosophers have been arguing about the equivalent of "Have you ever been so far as to even pretend to even want to go to do more like" for over 200 years

[Anonymous No.18478106]

lol@all of the anglos itt seething

[Anonymous No.18479142]

>posts a excerpt without any context from a famously difficult book
>doesn't even post the entire sentence
>doesn't understand it
hmm

[Anonymous No.18480847]

>>18477638
Where the quote from? What's the original german? As for understanding Hegel, of course you're not gonna understand it before you've grappled with Hegel concept of sublation(Aufgebung).

[Anonymous No.18481159]

>>18477822
>They're connected in name only
Go back.

[Anonymous No.18481239]

what the fuck does this mean
yeah i cant be arsed with philosophy, fuck that nerd stuff, my brain is too small for this shit

[Anonymous No.18481342]

>>18477638

My take (though I assume this is meant to be understood in a dialectical perspective, I'm not sure since I don't have context):

Both evil and good, while distinct in their concepts are manifestations in being-for-itself (reality, or the passive reality outside of any arbitrary action, thus outside of any subject... though in a sense it also includes the subjects with necessity).

So while they're distinct concepts, they're part of a unity (which is the being-for-itself). Both good and evil are a unity as integrated parts of an absolutely assemble/unity of reality (or reality thought as one).

If we perceive good and evil in this manner (as unity and individual conceptions), then we reach a point where we have to state two apparently contradictory points simultaneously: good and evil are the same while they're not the same.

Maybe I'm wrong, didn't read Hegel yet, but I think he might try to make a point along these lines ? Though if it would be so simple I wonder why he didn't state it like this, making me think it's not a very good take.

>>18477671

I'm not sure what the "point" means here. Is it a "point" of matter or an abstract "point" as in specific place in space ?

[Anonymous No.18481377]

This is one of the easier ones to comprehend imo

[Anonymous No.18481445]

>Read Hegel

[Anonymous No.18481886]

Had it occured to any of these midwits that the statements he makes are purely to highlight the absurdity of the topic, he dismantles the subject and people think that this process is supposed to be some higher truth, and ultimately reach confusion thinking they found treasures but are just being showed the map/blueprint.

[Anonymous No.18481887]

>>18477644
>>18477652
>>18477663
>>18477721
>>18477750
hideous last men

[Anonymous No.18481911]

>>18478106
>>18479142
>>18480847
>>18481377
>>18481887
Pseuds.

[Anonymous No.18481920]

>>18481911
>low iq american mole people trying to dunk on giga brains like hegel
I have taken an anthropological interest in this thread

[Anonymous No.18481929]

>>18481920
I'm Australian actually, I have a highly attuned acuity in detecting bullshit mate

[Anonymous No.18481941]

>>18481920
I wish you'd take an interest in posting something elucidating about him instead

[Anonymous No.18481950]

>>18481941
Ask away.

>>18481929
Seethe dingo nigger.

[Anonymous No.18481958]

>>18481950
What do you think he's getting at it with the quotation in the op?

[Anonymous No.18481983]

>>18481950
Defend his notion of time too, as posted above.

[Anonymous No.18482008]

>>18477638
where is this from?

Love how he takes up Spinoza

[Anonymous No.18482043]

>>18481958
the main thing he wants to say is that all identity statements are founded on difference, or a constitutive contradiction. the identity or "sameness" of good and evil already presupposes their difference. good and evil are both joined and disjoined. instead of a flat self-identity A = A, Hegel's dialectical twist is that A = A in virtue of what is not-A.

>>18481983
Time is the negation of space as pure quantity, purely formal difference. Time qualifies the merely indifferent difference between two points in empty space; by adding an extra dimension to how these two points can be related, time becomes motion: negativity.

[Anonymous No.18482059]

>>18482043
But what does he mean by 'when evil is the same as good'

[Anonymous No.18482065]

>>18482059
In that they participate in the same formal operation, are the same operation - simple self-knowing.

[Anonymous No.18482084]

>>18482043
You've just restated Hegel 101, the coincidence of opposites, you haven't explained how good and evil individually sublated and you fail to explain what is meant by evil as "inwardly-turned being-for-itself" and so on. On time, the passage says nothing about quantity/quality and the rest is just you summarizing some jargon without explaining anything.

[Anonymous No.18482098]

>>18482065
What's a "formal operation" and how does simple self knowing qualify as one? How does this abstruse construction relate back to any ordinary understanding of good and evil in any way?

[Anonymous No.18482131]

>>18482084
no, I'm talking about the logic of identity in speculative thought, the coincidence of opposites isn't even what you think it is, it's more to do with the notion of reversibility in tiantai buddhism than anything else.

[Anonymous No.18482214]

>>18482131
>Tiantai buddhism
Interesting connection.

[Anonymous No.18482235]

It seems obvious that he's saying that if the "good" enters the realm of the "evil," it ceases to be "evil." However, since "good" and "evil" are now equal, neither mean anything.

[Anonymous No.18482263]

>>18482235
What the fuck is good and evil in the first place???

[Anonymous No.18482324]

[Lamy No.18482331]

>>18482324
What does the dielectric ask people to do?

[Anonymous No.18483891]

>>18480847
PoS, §780

[Anonymous No.18483894]

>>18482331
To syncretize

[Anonymous No.18483907]

>>18481920
>Saying "low iq"
>Saying "giga brain"
>Saying anthropologically so liberally
Ask me how I know you're 15?

[Anonymous No.18483910]

>And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there! In this world, there is good and evil. Its good things are not good, and its evil things not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil - what is called "the middle". It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle. For many go astray on the way. For it is good to come forth from the world before one has sinned.

[Anonymous No.18483916]

>When evil is the same as good, then evil itself is not evil, nor is goodness good, but both have instead been sublated.

This sentence is the theory. When 'eviil' is the same as 'good', bot have been sublated (subsumed) into a larger whole and lost their original meaning. The following sentences are an attempt to explain this using logic defined in paragraphs preceding the one you've pasted here.

[Anonymous No.18484831]

>>18477872

I mean, Marx did understand Hegel. The fundamental of Marx's theory is literally Hegel's dialectics, but applied socially, not to ideas.

[Anonymous No.18484841]

>>18484831
>Marx did understand Hegel.
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.18484860]

>>18477638

[Anonymous No.18485847]

this thread is blessed by the geist

[Anonymous No.18485966]

ok but what is the rest of the text? this just sounds like him stating the conclusion of his argument
>>18482043
> instead of a flat self-identity A = A, Hegel's dialectical twist is that A = A in virtue of what is not-A.
this is not hegel's innovation. read fichte (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.18487276]

>>18484831
That's just commie boilerplate. You'll have to do better than that.

[Anonymous No.18487341]

>>18477638
Uhh... Hegelbros?

[Anonymous No.18487375]

>>18485966
Even that has it's root in Kant. Even pre-critical Kant.

[Anonymous No.18487616]

>>18487341
Hegelians generally believe that the more obscure and difficult to understand a piece of writing is the more correct it is.