/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21579664]

Who do I read if I really like Hegel?

I like both Hegel's philosophy of history/political philosophy and his metaphysics.

Aside from the logic of the dialectical itself, it is his ontology and resolution of the realistic/nominalist conflict that I find most impressive. It prefigures the concept of emergence, cybernetics/circular causality, and complexity. He resolves the subjective/objective problem in the best manner I've seen attempted.

>The conception and its existence are two sides, distinct yet united, like soul and body. The body is the same life as the soul, and yet the two can be named independently. A soul without a body would not be a living thing, and vice versa. Thus the visible existence of the conception is its body, just as the body obeys the soul which produced it. Seeds contain the tree and its whole power, though they are not the tree itself ; the tree corresponds accurately to the simple structure of the seed. If the body does not correspond to the soul, it is defective. The unity of visible existence and conception, of body and soul, is the idea. It is not a mere harmony of the two, but their complete interpenetration. There lives nothing, which is not in some way idea. The idea of right is freedom, which, if it is to be apprehended truly, must be known both in its conception and in the embodiment of the conception.

From Elements of the Philosophy of Right.

I would prefer someone who doesn't write like him though. His writing is fucking atrocious.

[Anonymous No.21579771]

>>21579664
You talk about cybernetics, Langan posits reality as a self-configuring self-processing language the currency of which is self-transducing information. He has in fact constructed an entire "metaformal system" that accommodates this language. You talk about circular causality, Langan actually explains why reality must be circular via the concept of "self-determinacy" deduced from the reality principle. He is capable of proving your quoted text via the mathematical concept of syndiffeonesis. Basically, everything Hegel can do, Langan does better because he provides the logico-mathematical structure necessary to support his claims. Although people like to think Hegel does this, he doesn't. Any questions?

[Anonymous No.21580100]

>>21579664
Nagarjuna also share his love for paradoxes, relational ontologies and being and becoming as two sides of the same coin
also Heiegger and Gadamr perfected the phenomenological method he created

[Anonymous No.21580111]

>>21579771
Neat.

But why does this exist? Does it emerge via contradiction (e.g being/nothing becoming) as in Hegel (or from Boehme)? I'm quite fascinated by that.

Particularly since the dialectical is not subject to incompleteness or undefinability, unlike axiomatic formal systems. Hegel didn't formalize this, but others have worked on that since, pic related.

I can get behind information based reality. Big fan of Wheeler's "It From Bit," and Davies' work on the subject. Also Deacon relating it to biosemiotics.

[Anonymous No.21580130]

Bakker has some cool Hegelian epic fantasy. Just ignore Neuropath and his early papers because they are braindead eliminitivism.

[Anonymous No.21580424]

>>21580111
>But why does this exist? Does it emerge via contradiction (e.g being/nothing becoming) as in Hegel (or from Boehme)? I'm quite fascinated by that.
In the sense that reality "needs it negation" in order to be distinguishable or identifiable as reality, yes. The caveat here is that nothing unreal can be included in reality. We can say a particular part or aspect of reality "isn't real", but as soon as we apply such a statement to reality itself, we have absolutely nothing by definition. What we really need is not "something that is defined on the negation of reality entirely", but on the negation of information. Langan solves this with the concept of UBT, a unitary ontological medium consisting of unbounded, thus infinite, information potential. Informational reality is embedded within this medium, being defined as a restriction of said potential.
>the dialectical is not subject to incompleteness or undefinability, unlike axiomatic formal systems.
The dialectic both is and is not subject to incompleteness. It is subject to incompleteness in the sense that information is subject to logic, which dictates that systems with informational boundaries contain statements that are either true or false, but not both. The dialectic is not subject to incompleteness in the sense that where there is no information, there is no logical structure or need for incompleteness. Although Boehme and Hegel were essentially correct, the CTMU is simply a more expressive and comprehensive theory capable of casting their own ideas under a brighter light.

[Anonymous No.21580451]

>>21579664
>we are not body or soul but the two!
is this really the best resolve?.

[Anonymous No.21580457]

[Anonymous No.21581305]

>>21580424
I meant incompleteness as in formalizing it would not result in a system where some truths are unprovable, (Gödel) and that truth is not indefinable (Tarski).

What is neat is that similar methods are employed in quantum logic and categorical quantum foundations. You even have more practical applications in ZX-calculus.

I find these interesting because there certainly appears to be an underappreciated connection between information theory and Hegel's system.


But where to start with Lacan? I can't say I'm a huge fan of Freud. A lot of it just seems like pseudoscience, although I can appreciate parts. Always liked Jung more.

[Anonymous No.21581323]

>>21579664
Emergence is just nominalism. Hegel did not solve the realism/nominalism divide, he just created a more elaborate nominalism. Which makes sense because he is fundamentally Protestant.

[Anonymous No.21581440]

>The fate of the Jewish people is the fate of Macbeth who stepped out of nature itself, clung to alien beings, and so in their service had to trample and slay everything holy in human nature.
>in Theologische Jugendschriften (1907), S. 261
He was right all the time

[Anonymous No.21582289]

>>21579771
>he provides the logico-mathematical structure necessary to support his claims
Hegel does too in the science of logic

[Anonymous No.21582296]

>>21581323

This so much, the neo-obscurantist idealist neo-Hegelians are so annoying because they are just over-explicating an already nominalist philosophical system and overbloating it with even more elements. This is what happens when you read to much , you become retarded. This is why Marx was so based, he took the system and made it his own without all the bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21583078]

>>21581323
Hegel prefigures the concept of emergence, he doesn't have the modern concept worked out. Modern definitions of emergence are by no means necessarily nominalist anyhow. You can accept the actuality of abstract objects such as triangles and also maintain that without lines one does not have triangles. Likewise, philosophers of time and physicists who argue for the reality of local becoming, against the more popular block universe conception, see time as Aristotle did, as a dimension emerging from change, i.e., the dimension on which change occurs. Thus the reply to Zeno's arrow for time realists is Aristotle's, that he makes a fallacy of composition because of course there is no motion in any frozen instant.

This sort of idea of emergence did exist for Hegel, who was in many ways an Aristotlean, and who followed the science of his day, where people supported a Liebnitzean view of time in line with Aristotle's view.

But such emergence does not entail nominalism by any means. Nominalism doesn't make sense in Hegel. "What is real is rational, and what is rational is real," the essence of a thing, and the rationality of it is what creates the bridge between subject and object and unified the whole.

[Anonymous No.21583126]

>>21582289
Since you believe so, can you show me where he deduces that reality is a self-causing unitary system? Since I know this is more or less what Hegel has claimed, and since you just said that the necessary structure to support his claims should be in his work known as "Science of Logic", you will surely have no problem pointing out the deduction. (hint: stating that something is true isn't a deduction) (hint: including the word 'Logic' in the title of your book doesn't necessitate that it contain logically valid arguments)

[Anonymous No.21583301]

Hegel's biggest problem, aside from mathematics and logic not having gone far enough to formalize his intuitions. No category theory, no modal logic, no graph theory, etc.

Then his credibility took a hit from Russel's, in retrospect, invalid criticism about how all prior logic was obsolete, mixed with a misunderstanding of the implications of Cantor's work.

I try to be charitable to philosophers of all sorts, but since Russel was so incredibly uncharitable himself, I think it's worth noting that he had a best a light grip on Hegel. Having been a prodigy he was used to things coming easy to him. Hegel isn't easy, either the subject matter or the horrid writing, and it certainly seems like he just got badly filtered. The Principia will be a tome for historians of philosophy while the Science of Logic will continue to be studied for generations, the last laugh.

It's sad because the Logicalism Russel aspired to seemed to get killed by Gödel and other innovations around the time, but remained dormant in dialectical, waiting to be reborn after major advanced in mathematics and logic. Russell created analytical philosophy as a reaction against Hegel, his project, at least in the form of logical positivism, crashed and burned, and yet from the ashes, like a phoenix, Logicalism reemerged garbed in Hegelian dialectical decades later.

>>21582296
>>21581323

If you think Hegel's system is nominalist you have entirely missed it. Which to be fair, in the famous introduction to the Phenomenology he does do a long recap of the Lockean and Kantian points he wishes to argue AGAINST, but does not make this as clear as he should be. For Hegel, the concept is the reality. There cannot be nominalism in a system where concept is ontologically basic. It's more a fusion of nominalism and realism, turned into a circular causal loop.

[Anonymous No.21583313]

>>21583301
Wrong reading list, although still relevant.

Actually, in a way, the formalization of dialectical begun by Lawvere is sort of Hegel's sublation of Russel's project from beyond the grave.

[Anonymous No.21583362]

>>21579664

[Anonymous No.21583507]

>>21579771
Oh it's the smartest man in the universe. So is he legit?

[Anonymous No.21583573]

>>21583507
Yes, for reasons that have been stated in the post you are replying to, he is indeed "legit".

[Anonymous No.21583591]

>>21583573
So when will the scientific/philosophical community recognize the genius in him?

[Anonymous No.21583634]

>>21583591
Whenever they feel need to recognize a theory which explains the existence and origin of the universe and the nature of the relationship between mind and reality. Fortunately, neither logic nor truth are dependent on the opinions of any person or group of persons. This must be why the Earth was already revolving around the Sun even before large amounts of people, within a specific community or in general, began to believe that was the case.

[Anonymous No.21583676]

>>21583634
Like is this going to become canon? I mean if it's undeniable, it's bound to happen soon, right? That Galileo was shunned wasn't because people were denying infallible logic, but that he was lacking the necessary rigorous proof for it, and yet remained adamant of his correctness and even taught it under the pretence. That wouldn't fly in modern academia either.

[Anonymous No.21583688]

>>21581323
>Hegel
>nominalist
Holy shit lmao your reading comprehension is of a 12 year old. Hegel is a pretty standard Aristotelian moderate realist.

[Anonymous No.21583716]

>>21583676
>Like is this going to become canon? I mean if it's undeniable, it's bound to happen soon, right?
Insofar as one can deny everything considered to be canon, undeniability obviously isn't a necessary condition for something to be considered canon.

[Anonymous No.21583727]

kojve

[Anonymous No.21583774]

>>21583716
Deny "cogito, ergo sum," then. I would go so far as to say nothing is fully deniable. But that means I've already made a mistake in the post before, so I'll restate:

Is his theory even worth the attempt of being denied?

It is these cumulative attempts of denial that have built the Western canon.

[Anonymous No.21583786]

>>21579771
>>21580424
>langan

[Anonymous No.21583805]

>>21583774
>Is his theory even worth the attempt of being denied?
Worth is at least partially subjective insofar as there must be something or someone which does the valuation. I would say most would not find "reality contains all and only that which is real" to be worth the attempt of being denied. And since this is the primary axiom of his theory, I would say most would not find his theory to be worth the attempt of being denied.

[Anonymous No.21583816]

>>21583805
So it's tautology, then?

[Anonymous No.21583830]

>>21583816
Yes.

[Anonymous No.21583840]

>>21583830
Wow, stimulating.

[Anonymous No.21583850]

>>21583840
k

[Anonymous No.21583875]

>>21583676
Newton's laws weren't undeniable either. They were almost immediately falsified by the orbits of the outer planets. We didn't jettison Newton's excellent approximation due to this, or his equations inability to deal with multiple bodies, we posited unseen planets further out in the solar system exerting gravitational attraction upon ones we could see. Such planets were later observed, but it looks centuries.

How is the positing of other planets different from the epicycles of Ptolemy? Because they aren't ad hoc, they fit with the theory, although as Cartwright points out, Newton's laws must be merely approximations, since they can't handle multiple bodies or bodies as composite entities.

The relevance being here is that people way to heavily on Popper and falsification, and the positivist attempt to banish philosophy from science just means accepting the philosophy of prior scientists without understanding it or questioning it. So Copenhagen was meant to be quantum mechanics free from philosophy but became positivism as dogma. The block universe comes from the legacy of Newton over Liebnitz, and is hardly proven or entailed by research findings. People think they are reading majority "physics" opinion and really they are reading Carnap.

Majority opinion of science is what it is and then it snaps all at once. It's a social phenomena, the paradigm shift. Kuhn was spot on with this. Paradigm shifts can take a long time. US K-12 education and probably 95% of adults still have a view of physics as the corpuscularism of the 18th century. Little billiard balls of stuff float around and hit each other and this randomly happens produces all phenomena.

You might not learn of information theory until grad school and most people never learn QFT. But the actual reality in physics is that this view has been dead, stone dead, for over a century, totally falsified. Yet able biologists might still buy into it today.

[Anonymous No.21583903]

>>21580130
Bakker also has a cuckold fetish and he inserts it everywhere in his writing. I'd advise OP to read something else.

[Anonymous No.21583926]

>>21579664
>I would prefer someone who doesn't write like him though.
Check out Bernardo Kastrup or pic related.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.

[Anonymous No.21583936]

>>21583875
Thank you, I remember vaguely something like that. So what's the most based stance on it?

[Anonymous No.21584290]

>>21579771
Has Langan spoken/written his take on Hegel anywhere?

[Anonymous No.21584335]

>>21584290

[Anonymous No.21584416]

>>21584335
Cool. Has he written about Nick Land? Really farfetched, but I'm wondering whether his notion of the universe self actualizing itself is in any way comparable to Lands talk of the emerging AI of markets.

[Anonymous No.21584464]

>>21584335
Langan is a worthless retard with an obvious chip on his shoulder regarding academia. Always mentions how he was just too smart to get a degree and it's everybody else's fault. I'll take his babble seriously when it produces just one conclusion resembling a scientific result.

[Anonymous No.21584520]

>>21583875
>Majority opinion of science is what it is and then it snaps all at once. It's a social phenomena, the paradigm shift. Kuhn was spot on with this. Paradigm shifts can take a long time. US K-12 education and probably 95% of adults still have a view of physics as the corpuscularism of the 18th century. Little billiard balls of stuff float around and hit each other and this randomly happens produces all phenomena.
>You might not learn of information theory until grad school and most people never learn QFT. But the actual reality in physics is that this view has been dead, stone dead, for over a century, totally falsified.
See >>21584459

[Anonymous No.21584528]

>>21584416
>Has he written about Nick Land?
Not specifically, no. I do know that he has said that "humanlike consciousness is not mechanizable", and I am fairly certain he makes this distinction based on his self-deterministic notion of causation along with SCSPL. Humans can generatively produce sentences which correspond to observations in the real world non-locally, whereas a machine-based intelligence isn't capable of doing such a thing but will on humans to produce that identity for it. For example, at some point after the development of the eye, a tree was identified as a tree. So the identity of the tree now exists and has been generated more or less spontaneously by the percipient, whereas previously the identity did not exist.

[Anonymous No.21584544]

>>21584416
>Has he written about Nick Land?
Not specifically, no. I do know that he has said that "humanlike consciousness is not mechanizable", and I am fairly certain he makes this distinction based on his self-deterministic notion of causation along with SCSPL. Humans can generatively produce sentences which correspond to observations in the real world non-locally, whereas a machine-based intelligence isn't capable of doing such a thing but will rely on humans to produce that identity for it. For example, at some point after the development of the eye, a tree was identified as a tree. So the identity of the tree now exists and has been generated spontaneously by the percipient, whereas previously the identity did not exist.