/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19310769]

Is Hegelian dialectics just a newer form of Hermetic alchemical "union of opposites" ideas?

[Anonymous No.19310780]

>>19310769
no retard

[Anonymous No.19310783]

>>19310780
How so

[Anonymous No.19310784]

thesis and antithesis aren't opposites

[Anonymous No.19310818]

>>19310784
prove it

[Anonymous No.19310882]

>>19310769
They're probably related. I wrote an essay about it in relation to Finnegans Wake. Hegelians would probably view it as more complicated than a mere union of opposites though, at least not a static unity but more of a dynamic movement. They also may not view it as a unity of oppositions but rather as the resolutions of the internal contradictions of any one essence, but that is pernickety language describing almost essentially the same idea.
If you're interested in the connections probably look at Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition, but also Sanford L. Drob's Archetype of the Absolute.

[Anonymous No.19310887]

why don’t you just post on /his/ when you clearly don’t give a shit about reading

[Anonymous No.19310909]

>>19310769
No. Also the whole semiotics of opposites thing predates alchemy and shows up in Heraclitus long before, and later in Gnostic mysticism.

Hegelian semiotics isn't about a tension of eternal antipodes that exist sort of like Platonic forms. The specific generates the universal. Realism and nominalism aren't in opposition in Hegel, rather the universal and the specific are part of a "circle of circles."

"The truth is the whole." Hegel has a weird sort of coherence epistemology that predates coherence definitions of truth as such.

It's extremely hard to sum up succinctly. I feel like Hackett's Hegel's Ladder's coverage of the Preface to PoS does a good job in clarity and brevity, but it's still 200 pages and requires a background in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19310930]

>>19310909
>The truth is the whole."
>coherence epistemology
I agree with these but nominalism is not possible in this worldview. I reject nominalism.

[Anonymous No.19311025]

>>19310930
Nominalism seems wrong for things like triangles and spheres. But then realism seems ridiculous for most universals, which shift over time.

[Anonymous No.19311030]

>>19311025
Oh shit! They are forming a contradiction. A synthesis is on the way.

Just as being and non-being are a contradiction (where is the line between the two?), and thus, all that is is becoming, so too there is no universal form or mere name, but the two becoming as part of a synthesis. I get it now.

[Anonymous No.19312022]

>>19310769
I have no idea, tell us first what the hermetic alchemical "union of opposites" is, then I'll tell you

[Anonymous No.19312049]

>>19312022
>tell us first what the hermetic alchemical "union of opposites" is
No.

[Anonymous No.19312055]

>>19310930
If you divide reality into "nominalism" and "realism" you've been filtered by Hegel from the outset.

[Anonymous No.19312099]

>>19312055
Actually I am beyond Hegel.

[Anonymous No.19312142]

>>19312055
Platonic forms and universals are real and I will not apologize for saying this.

[Anonymous No.19312409]

>>19312049
Come onnnn

[Anonymous No.19312414]

>>19311030
Dont think about it in terms of synthesis, it has nothing to do with it.
Also your reconstruction of the dialectic is wrong, it's almost as if Hegel started with two arbitrary concepts and then negated them by saying that "all that is is becoming". If Hegel did that, he would certainly be an idiot.

[Anonymous No.19312422]

>>19312142
They're real for Hegel to, but he also thinks that their actual reality is their manifestation. Or in platonic terms, he thinks that the being of an idea is its instantiation - or in conversely, a real idea that doesnt substantiate itself is an impossible object (kinda like, for example, trying to imagine a cause without its effect: if there's no effect, then we're wrong in talking about causes).

[Anonymous No.19313430]

>>19310769
in a sense, it is commonly known that hegel was familiar with kabbalah, spinozism and hermeticism and worked with these concepts critically but his dialectics are not just a modern version of it but instead qualitatively different while retaining historical continuity to the thinkers before

[Anonymous No.19313459]

>>19312055
Dubs confirm.

[Anonymous No.19313484]

>>19312422
Lmao Hegel is a pseud

[Anonymous No.19313515]

>>19310783
Not gracing that with a response.

[Anonymous No.19313915]

>>19310769
Yes. This is also the reason why those who think Hegel was a satanic illuminati are retarded. If Hegel was this, so were the hermetic tradition, as well as Heraclites, Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.19314720]

>>19313915
>If Hegel was this, so were the hermetic tradition, as well as Heraclites, Parmenides.
But they were, aware or not.