/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21862221]

What the FUCK is any of the supposed to mean? I got all As in the philosophy courses I took. This shit is nonsense. Is this guy a giant hoax?

>According to the second determination, it is the sphere within which fall the determinations and the entire movement of its reflection. Here, being will posit itself in three determinations:

>I as determinateness as such: quality

>II as sublated determinateness: magnitude, quantity

>III as qualitatively determined quantity: measure.

>At this stage, this division is, as was remarked of these divisions generally in the Introduction, a preliminary statement; its determinations have first to arise from the movement of being itself and in so doing define and justify themselves. As regards the divergence of this classification from the usual presentation of the categories, namely, as quantity, quality, relation and modality — these moreover with Kant are supposed to be only titles for his categories though they are, in fact, themselves categories, only more general ones — this calls for no special comment here, as the entire exposition will show a complete divergence from the usual arrangement and significance of the categories.

>This only perhaps can be remarked, that hitherto the determination of quantity has been made to precede quality and this as is mostly the case — for no given reason. It has already been shown that the beginning is made with being as such, therefore, with qualitative being. It is easily seen from a comparison of quality with quantity that the former by its nature is first. For quantity is quality which has already become negative; magnitude is the determinateness which is no longer one with being but is already differentiated from it, sublated quality which has become indifferent. It includes the alterableness of being, although the category itself, namely Being, of which it is the determination, is not altered by it. The qualitative determinateness, on the other hand, is one with its being: it neither goes beyond it nor is internal to it, but is its immediate limitedness. Quality therefore, as the immediate determinateness, is primary and it is with it that the beginning must be made.

>Measure is a relation, but not relation in general, for it is the specific relation between quality and quantity; the categories which Kant includes under relation will come up for consideration in quite another place. Measure can also, if one wishes, be regarded as a modality; but since with Kant modality is supposed no longer to constitute a determination of the content, but to concern only the relation of the content to thought, to the subjective element, it is a quite heterogeneous relation and is not pertinent here.

[Anonymous No.21862352]

>>21862221
>Hegel's Logic
are the pages all blank?

[Anonymous No.21862354]

>>21862221
>I got all As in the philosophy courses I took
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.21862365]

>>21862221
First you must familiarize yourself with Aristotle

[Anonymous No.21862366]

>>21862352
lol

[Anonymous No.21862374]

>>21862221
lmao I ain't readin all that shit nigga
(but I legit disagree with Hegel too ;)

[Anonymous No.21862379]

>>21862221
Imagine reading this prose without getting paid lmao.

[Anonymous No.21862384]

>>21862221
>>I as determinateness as such: quality
>>II as sublated determinateness: magnitude, quantity
>>III as qualitatively determined quantity: measure.
Hegel really did not study his Aquinas. This is almost embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.21863369]

I don't think humanities type philosophers read this part of Hegel. They read the Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Right. The Greater and Lesser Logics tend to get focused on by the types of weird mathematicians who do mathematical foundations and the weird subset of philosophers whose work consists of pages and pages of autism rune "proofs."

[× I V R I V S × !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21863380]

Why do dumb people try to read Hegel?

[Anonymous No.21863383]

IDK, writers who I respect take this book quite seriously, but it also seems to cause people to go in extremely schizoid directions. I was looking for easy commentaries that focused on the relevance to parts that have actually influenced the sciences (Hegel is sort of an early progenitor of complexity studies, semiotics, and information theory), and never found one that was both fleshed out and didn't go into schizo territory.

However, I did find an MIT and Harvard trained engineering professor with a tenure track job who has seemingly gone full schizo and written a 200+ page pdf "paper" (so maybe like 500 paperback pages) on how Hegel connects to information theory. A man with a practical vocation driven to insanity...

Ever since, the book as reminded me of the movie Pi.

[Anonymous No.21863393]

>>21863369
Nlab has this sort of things in spades.

[Anonymous No.21863394]

Hegel is a very psychedelic and mystical writer. It like when you step back from the particular and see the whole with all of its contradictions and conflicts and yet it is "the One/the Absolute". Yet this contradictory whole is logic and it works and we have barely the communicative language tools to portray it. Advaita Vedanta tries the same thing and Hegel did his best with the philosophical tools he had as well. Ultimately its too hard to merely rationaly coprehend it, this is why intellectual intuition plays such a large role in Hegel, so much so that on that point he breaks with Kant and Schelling.

[Anonymous No.21863646]

>>21862221
Just go with the flow.

[Anonymous No.21864132]

It intrigues me that I've never met a genuine Hegel fan who is able to seriously qualify and illuminate what he is saying in his major works without basically repeating the general form of his words in a slightly different form.

In his minor works he tends to be much more insightful and have much more specific and tangible things to say, but his big projects aim at such horrifically abstract things that it's often not even clear what his actual goal is or why he even believes it's achievable. The basic concepts underlying how he goes about his work, like the dialectic, the aufhebung, seem to offer some insight into how one might meaningfully raise concepts into higher forms to achieve something with them that wouldn't be possible with only more basic analytic logic, but then his actual works seem to go on with such craziness that seem to heavily rely on anyone subject to them to have flashes of insight where the movements of his concepts align and things then seems to make sense, occasionally in a pleasurably satisfying way, but then there is always something off somewhere that makes you rightly doubt you see things as he does at all, and you never seem to get at something that tangibly matters in a clear way.

The cult like nature of his following, the way people seem to be so strongly committed to ether seeing him as utterly right, or a complete sham, with few nuanced discussions of indeterminacy arising, makes his whole project extremely suspect to me, especially given that this we are not dealing with math-like issues where such attitudes wouldn't be surprising. I cannot put my heart in him, but I feel I understand why people might be tempted to feel right in doing so.