/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4407162]

Did Hegel find the truth? Is Hegel the culmination of history and philosophy?

[Anonymous No.4407165]

no, there is no truth postmodernism proved it

[Anonymous No.4407189]

If I had an Indian in the Cupboard style cupboard, I would put my Hegel and Schopenhauer action figures in it, and then force them to make out while I schlicked.

[Anonymous No.4407192]

>>4407189
oh man that's sadistic

[Anonymous No.4407195]

yes he is inspirational

[Anonymous No.4407199]

>>4407165
Tarski proved Postmodernism wrong though.

[Anonymous No.4407210]

>>4407189
If I had an Indian In the Cupboard style cupboard I wound put all my anime girl statuettes in there and do stuff to them.

[Anonymous No.4407231]

>>4407195
thats beautiful

[Anonymous No.4407232]

He was right when he said that women need to stay in the domestic so that men can attain the universal.

[Anonymous No.4407273]

Recently revisited Hegel while reviewing definitions of idealism. Was surprised to see w-m.com quoting him:

Absolute idealism (see G. W. F. Hegel) includes the following principles: (1) the everyday world of things and persons is not the world as it really is but merely as it appears in terms of uncriticized categories; (2) the best reflection of the world is in terms of a self-conscious mind; (3) thought is the relation of each particular experience with the infinite whole of which it is an expression; and (4) truth consists in relationships of coherence between thoughts, rather than in a correspondence between thoughts and external realities

[Anonymous No.4407427]

>>4407165
No, there's no truth in the meta fictions that had been set up as the truth in bygone days.

[Anonymous No.4407996]

>>4407199
>Tarski
Whoa, whoa, whoa... Get your real philosophy out of here, we're happy with our tinfoil hats.

[Anonymous No.4408001]

>>4407162
If you're looking for things like "truth" in philosophy you're not reading it properly. Focus on the analysis itself.

[Anonymous No.4408006]

>Dewy\James

[Anonymous No.4408009]

no it was Feuerbach
did Hegel ever have a beard even

[Anonymous No.4408011]

>>4408001
>If you're looking for things like "truth" in continental philosophy you're not reading it properly.
Fix'd.

[Anonymous No.4408015]

>>4407199
im new. how can you prove post-modernism wrong? how is it even a thing you can prove? isn't it just a movement? can i get some lessons please?

[Anonymous No.4408014]

>>4407162
>Did Hegel find the truth?
No.
>Is Hegel the culmination of history and philosophy?
lol no.

[Anonymous No.4408021]

>>4408015
I don't think they know that post modernism is a rationalization after a schism in culture has already happened and are only applied after it's already observed, and can't be wrong, but become something else if the culture finds some new paradigm? I think you know more than those idiots.

[Anonymous No.4408031]

Post-modernists never provided evidence to back up their claims, so they were never right in the first place

[Anonymous No.4408032]

[Anonymous No.4408033]

>>4408031
what was their claim

[Anonymous No.4408036]

>>4408011
>muh Analytical philosophy

>>4407165
What's a retorsion, anon ?

[Anonymous No.4408040]

>>4408036
>muh "I've never read analytical philosophy but I still think I know everything because I've read Pyrrho's tropes"

[Anonymous No.4408043]

>>4408011
Oh look, another needlessly arrogant follower of the analytical tradition.

Don't masturbate too vigorously, you'll get blisters.

[Anonymous No.4408044]

>>4407189

the implicit statement that you're a girl makes this post way better

[Anonymous No.4408053]

>>4408043
I just happen to read BOTH continental and analytical philosophy.
Just take a look at shit like this:
>>4407273
>(4) truth consists in relationships of coherence between thoughts, rather than in a correspondence between thoughts and external realities
Come on, nigger, do you still take this shit seriously?

[Anonymous No.4408060]

>>4408040
I never said that Analytical philosophy is wrong, useless or the same as ancient skepticism. I just pissed on a post without substance.

[Anonymous No.4408067]

>>4408060
The point of my comment was the other poster making a ridiculous generalization. Analytic philosophers do talk about truth and have reached pretty solid conclusions during the last century.

[Anonymous No.4408091]

>>4408067
Yes, it was a ridiculous generalisation in order to criticise the notion that all Continental philosophy is postmodernist relativism (and as a conclusion that only Analytical philosophy provides true statements), not so much an attack on Analytical philosophy itself.

[Anonymous No.4408101]

>>4408036
>What's a retorsion, anon ?
A phrase used in International Law is an act perpetrated by one nation upon another in retaliation or reprisal for a similar act perpetrated by the other nation. Duh.

[Anonymous No.4408105]

>>4408053


'truth as correspondence' is plainly insufficient as a 'whole truth' though, given that subjects are being in the world, not divorced from it.

[Anonymous No.4408172]

>>4408001
> implying Hegel didn't think he found the truth

Hegel didn't love wisdom.

[Anonymous No.4408305]

hegel?
more like
heglel

[Anonymous No.4408338]

>>4408105
How do correspondentist theories of truth imply we as subjects exist outside of the physical world?

[Anonymous No.4409512]

>>4408009

Feuerbach did nothing but replace one spook with another.

[Anonymous No.4409521]

>>4408338

Our thoughts correspond with nature through mirroring it, or representing it, and with this type of epistemology we end up living in a world where we only interact with representations of external reality, and thereby divorce ourselves, or alienate ourselves, from it.

[Anonymous No.4409522]

>>4407165
postmodernism is neosophism
>u can't know u know muffin
>cultural relativism
>pay me 100k for teaching you my doctrines and turn you into an unbearable pseudo intellectual

[Anonymous No.4409541]

>>4409522

>2013
>believing in objective truth

So whose agenda do you wittingly or (likely) unwittingly follow?

[Anonymous No.4409548]

>>4407162

You know, this question has been torturing me the past few months.

And no it's not becuase of Zizek or some other Marxist who are popularisers of Hegel. Just try reading the Phenomenology of Spirit and you will see Hegel was dealing with the absolutly most speculative and theoretical possibilities in philosophy.

Quite simply you will find out that his detractors like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger simply did not read him.

In one conference later in his life Richard Rorty (obviously influenced by Gadamer) said that the only thing that exists is the Dialogue and it makes you think how Hegel with his monstrous system and anti-system was near to the truth.

[Anonymous No.4409554]

>>4408053

>Come on, nigger, do you still take this shit seriously?


Why is this wrong? One does not revert to mentalism when claiming this. Reality is constituted mentaly and can only be preceived and understood mentaly. This is the basic claim phenomenology makes. How is it wrong?

[Anonymous No.4409566]

>>4409541
>ignore my point
>use ace up sleeve "question political motives"

your sophist teachers have taught you well how to act like a faggot

[Anonymous No.4409571]

>>4409566
>"question political motives"
>"and reminds you that no matter what you say you are wrong because you are controlled by the system as they define it "


dear god, I know those people, Foucault died decades ago, stop circle jerking, you don't sound intelligent at all

it is the 21st century of metaphysical solipsism
>something something blah blah
>your point is false because "you don't exist"/"you are controlled by invisible political forces
hue hue

It is truly neosophism

[Anonymous No.4409958]

>>4409521
>Our thoughts correspond with nature through mirroring it, or representing it,
More like the later. Yeah.
> and with this type of epistemology we end up living in a world where we only interact with representations of external reality
We don't interact with representations. we make representations to be able to interact with the world. Without representation there's no possible interaction (just action, but with no feedback).
>and thereby divorce ourselves, or alienate ourselves, from it.
wut

Man, I recommend you actually read about what truth as correspondence is, because I think you don't really get it.
There are two different things: facts and prepositions. Facts can not be "true" or "false", they are objective. They just "are". Prepositions are the only thing that can be true or false: truthfulness lies on language. No language, no truth. That's all. we don't divorce anything from anything because there's only reality. You as a subject are part of reality, the problem is that you make representations from reality to know about it, and your knowledge about reality can only possibly be through representations (with all the implications). Knowledge is expressed through propositions, and those propositions can sometimes be false (which invalidates what we believed was knowledge making it just an error). Then we have stuff that's part of our mental states, etc. like pain, pleasure or attraction. That stuff isn't knowledge, it's not "truth", those are just facts. We get it in a direct way, we don't need to make a representation: it's just a fact. We only "know" pain when we are not the ones we feel it (i.e. I can know you feel pain because I can see your facial expression), but I don't know I feel pain, I feel pain (and that's just a fact).

Now, please, tell me how with this theory I am separating reality into two different divorced things. Because I think I'm implying there's only one reality (another question is the problem of knowledge, which can only be limited and fallible: so no absolute truths outside of stuff like tautologies and maths).

[Anonymous No.4409965]

>>4409548
But Rorty is a fag and nobody takes him seriously...

[Anonymous No.4409968]

>>4409554
>Reality is constituted mentaly
This is obviously retarded. My mom existed before I was born, and she's real.
>and can only be preceived and understood mentaly.
Now, that's a VERY different thing.

[Anonymous No.4409975]

>>4409958
Eh, I mean propositions, not prepositions.

[Anonymous No.4410021]

>>4409958
>you make representations from reality to know about it
Le wut? Could you be anymore obscure? We do not willingly *make* any representations of reality, our mind does it actively.

>Knowledge is expressed through propositions, and those propositions can sometimes be false (which invalidates what we believed was knowledge making it just an error)
Now, this sentence makes me think you have no idea what "knowledge" is.

>I can know you feel pain because I can see your facial expression
Your "knowledge" of someone having pain is probabilistic at best. Probabilistic beliefs, that's all.

>absolute truths
Mere mental constructions.

[Anonymous No.4410034]

>>4410021
>We do not willingly *make* any representations of reality, our mind does it actively.
Obviously your mind does it. But we make representations consciously too. Don't miss the point.
>Now, this sentence makes me think you have no idea what "knowledge" is.
How do we express knowledge, then?
Give me one example of knowledge but express it without a proposition.
>Your "knowledge" of someone having pain is probabilistic at best. Probabilistic beliefs, that's all.
No shit. This might explain why I continued explaining ALL actual knowledge can only be limited and fallible.
>Mere mental constructions
Yeah, that was what I was referring to when talking about "stuff like tautologies and maths".

[Anonymous No.4410045]

>>4410034
>we make representations consciously
Give me an example. Seems nonsensical. We create our own beliefs and intentions BASED on representations, but not representations themselves: the term is more or less reserved for perception.

[Anonymous No.4410068]

>>4410045
A graph is a good example of a representation. Science is basically a more complex way of making representations of reality.

[Anonymous No.4410376]

>>4410068


there problem there is that a system builder transcends the system by necessity. in order this get science, there had to be, *prescience* (this applies to hegel too ["In Hegel's hands it [dialectics] worked out to conclusions that he had reached without it..."]).

[Anonymous No.4410472]

>>4410376
>*prescience*
This isn't a problem. Science started from pure observation, making risky predictions and assuming certain suppositions about nature. This is something a lot of animals do.

[Anonymous No.4410480]

>>4410472


naturally, that was basically my point.

[Anonymous No.4410552]

>>4410480
Oh, ok, I was assuming you were giving arguments against my post.

[Anonymous No.4410556]

>>4410552


i kinda was.

[Anonymous No.4410609]

>>4410556
Then I don't get what was the problem.

[Anonymous No.4410643]

>>4410609


i wasnt saying it was a problem, i was valorizing the capacity for more (or less) transcendence.

the problem with foundationalism though, is that it carries an implication that beings are not really being (or even beings) until theyve apprehended the 'foundation', which, if true, means that even an attempt towards a 'first philosophy' is futile.

hence, systems are not strictly 'necessary' in this sense, rather, they are a naturally emergent phenomina (and their usefulness is that they can be utilized 'naively' by the less transcendent).

[Anonymous No.4410668]

>>4410643
>i wasnt saying it was a problem
I think I misread the
>there problem there is
part then.

>systems are not strictly 'necessary' in this sense, rather, they are a naturally emergent phenomina (and their usefulness is that they can be utilized 'naively' by the less transcendent).
I think I agree with this, but what does "less transcendent" mean? I read "transcendent" as "out of the system".

Systems are just useful in their context, true. But I think almost all scientists, and philosophers who study epistemology in general and science in particular, are aware of this. That would be a problem for Hegel, who pretended to reach "transcendence" (knowledge of the Absolute), but not for correspondentist theories of truth, for example.

[Anonymous No.4410791]

>>4410668


in a word, the capacity for transcendence is imagination.

imagining different solutions to problems is one thing, it is an even greater thing to imagine how what you do or want to do relates to the whole. to be less transcendent essentially means conception of more simplistic, context sensitive ideals or goals.

consider, pursual of money, for instance, is a simple enough ideal to imagine. certainly, we could perhaps even create a quantitative method for calculating this ideal (that is, what actions will definitely get more money). but this state of affairs, this system of money, is obviously subject to revision (and indeed, is under constant revision). hence ones whos ideal consist of a mere pursuit of fiat brownie points are more akin to meaty difference engines (ie, autists), functioning essentially as cogs in a system created by a more transcendent leader (not that theres anything necessarily wrong with that).

so we can see how less transcendent ideals can be subsumed by more transcendent ones, but there is a further implication here. which is, right reasoning in pursuit of even simple ideals can still be advancing a broader teleology, even if you (or even anyone at all) are not expressly conscious of it.

[Anonymous No.4410848]

>>4407165

hegelianism transcends the truth/false dichotomy