/hegel/ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel General

File: 56 KB, 400x506, Georg-Wilhelm-Friedrich-Hegel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/hegel/ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel General Anonymous Sat Jan 24 18:45:39 2015 No.6046367 [Reply] [Original]

Discuss Hegelian Philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 18:46:38 2015 No.6046372 Somebody give me a brief outline on Hegelian philosophy. What are the 8 most important concepts to Hegel's philosophy that i should learn?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 18:47:41 2015 No.6046377 File: 83 KB, 460x585, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hegel was the original posturing charlatan

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 18:49:20 2015 No.6046384 >>6046377 I think most people would argue that his philosophy was of little relation to empirical data. Empirical data wasn't something that could really confirm or deny his thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 18:50:43 2015 No.6046392 >>6046384 That's why it is baseless posturing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 18:52:15 2015 No.6046399 >>6046384 Empirically baseless. Analytically, Conceptually, logically baseless? no.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 18:56:00 2015 No.6046420 >>6046392 There's much more to the world than empirical data my fedora wearing friend. Maybe before posting in a Hegel thread you should go back and start with the Greeks. :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:02:21 2015 No.6046445 >>6046420 >There's much more to the world than empirical data Such as?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:03:16 2015 No.6046452 >>6046445 not a philosophy expert but I would guess it stems from subjective experience, whatever they're talking about

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:06:05 2015 No.6046466 >>6046445 You need to go back and read the Greeks or else nothing I could say would possibly make any sense to you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:06:39 2015 No.6046468 >>6046452 All experiences can be measured empirically.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:07:05 2015 No.6046469 >>6046452 You would be kind of wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:07:42 2015 No.6046471 >>6046468 I don't think this is true at all, how are we supposed to measure an emotional reaction or the experience of seeing a tree

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:08:42 2015 No.6046477 >>6046469 go on

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:09:09 2015 No.6046479

>>6046466
Alright, so you've got nothing? I have read the Greeks, but that doesn't stop me from valuing modern science and empiricism. You act like the Greeks are some great people who need to be exalted for their work. But the majority of them were complete idiots with nothing worthwhile to say.

Now, can you give me an example or not? Do you just blindly follow Hegel?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:10:33 2015 No.6046484 >>6046471 Emotional reactions and perception can be observed in the brain. Come on, get with the times.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:10:34 2015 No.6046485 >>6046477 >>6046479 There are many things which we don't apprehend with the senses, but rather with the intellect. Numbers and formal objects for instance. Science is extremely valuable. That doesn't mean it has a full purchase on the truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:12:13 2015 No.6046492 I don't understand how Phenomenology is related to ethics at all?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:12:20 2015 No.6046494 >>6046484 Isn't it more accurate to say that the causes of emotional reaction and perception can be observed in the brain? >>6046485 Is that stuff not subjective experience? I thought that label applied to everything that isn't purely empirical studies

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:13:39 2015 No.6046498 >>6046485 Mathematics is compatible with empiricism. Read Quine and Putnam.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:14:40 2015 No.6046503 >>6046494 No, because emotional reactions require external stimuli.

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:15:16 2015 No.6046505

>>6046494

Subjective in the sense of relative? Of course not. You wouldn't say that of numbers surely? One is one, two is two, no matter who you are or what your subjective experience of the world is. The same applies to formal objects.

>>6046498

We nonetheless apprehend mathematical and formal objects with the intellect, and not with the senses.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:16:45 2015 No.6046511 >>6046505 No subjective in the sense that '1' only exists as an experience of thought, you can't point to it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:17:41 2015 No.6046516 >>6046505 >We nonetheless apprehend mathematical and formal objects with the intellect, and not with the senses. Read Putnam and Quine. >>6046511 Read Principia Mathematica.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:17:45 2015 No.6046517 >>6046503 How does that have anything to do with not being able to measure emotion by looking at a brain

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:19:33 2015 No.6046524

>>6046516

Which essays should I read in particular?

For the sake of argument, why don't you make the point you're wanting me to get out of them? I think its only fair since you asked me to account for myself when I referred you back to the Greeks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:20:22 2015 No.6046532 >>6046516 >go read x srsly

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:21:01 2015 No.6046536 >>6046511 Numbers have reality independent of whether or not they are thought. 2 and 2 make 4 whether or not anyone is around to think about it. Through our subjective experience of thought, we apprehend number and form.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:22:14 2015 No.6046540 File: 86 KB, 382x440, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6046517 We can measure emotion by looking at a brain. Are you really this stupid?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:22:28 2015 No.6046541 >>6046536 how do you prove that

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:23:15 2015 No.6046546 >>6046524 Read about their empirical approach to mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:23:28 2015 No.6046547 >>6046540 That's not emotion, that is brain activity that we suspect is related to emotion

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:25:07 2015 No.6046556

>>6046541

>mfw these fedoras can't wrap their minds around anything they can't rub their dicks on

Are you seriously asking me to prove that 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4 right now?

>>6046546

I don't care that empiricists have thought about mathematics before. Their ideas are wrong. Mathematical objects are real, and we apprehend them through the intellect and not the senses. This is obvious insofar as you have never seen or touched the number 7.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:25:58 2015 No.6046562 >>6046556 I'm asking you prove that 2 even exists outside of our experience of thinking about it

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:27:29 2015 No.6046567
File: 65 KB, 457x357, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6046547
https://experiencelife.com/article/emotional-biochemistry/

You have to be trolling. Emotions are nothing more than chemicals.
>>6046556
>Their ideas are wrong.
You haven't even read them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:28:42 2015 No.6046573 >>6046567 >Emotions are nothing more than chemicals. Emotions are an experience, which is not the same thing as chemicals

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:28:52 2015 No.6046574 >>6046567 Still doesn't solve the problem of qualia.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:33:59 2015 No.6046584 >>6046562 Okay, but instead of giving a proof I'd like to do the questioning and have you do the answering, just for the sake of keeping everybody on the same page. Is your position that numbers are fictional?

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:37:15 2015 No.6046589

>>6046584
I don't have a position, but I don't see how there's more of an argument for numbers being something that exists outside of us than there is for numbers being a purely experiential thing. I don't know that fictional is the exact same idea as experiential, because you could argue that experience exists as much as the things we point to in the world.

Neither of these positions appears possible to prove to me

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:42:03 2015 No.6046599 >>6046573 An experience of chemicals. >>6046574 Yes it does. Qualia is a bunch of unscientific nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:43:54 2015 No.6046605 >>6046599 Define experience.

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:44:14 2015 No.6046606

>>6046589

Well, in that case, would you say that if I had two coconuts, and you had two coconuts, and we put them together, we would have four coconuts, and that we would have four coconuts in reality and not in fiction?

And likewise if we did this with four horses, or shoes, or any other kind of object of experience?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:45:47 2015 No.6046611 >>6046605 encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:47:27 2015 No.6046616 File: 117 KB, 684x684, japanese.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkpEIQYl92Y

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:49:54 2015 No.6046627

>>6046606
I would say that we don't know what the world actually is outside of our experience of it, and that science is purely an instrumental endeavor, it can make us more aware of relations between sensory data. Whatever the coconuts are is impossible to say, and it's impossible and kind of meaningless to say that there are really 4 of them. On the other hand we can be sure that every time we do that the relation between the sensory-intellectual experiences of having two coconuts and combining them with two more will always produce the experience of having 4 and you can expand this instrumental certainty to similar cases of experience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:50:56 2015 No.6046632 >>6046445 abstractions

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:53:00 2015 No.6046638 >>6046616 nice tune, man

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 19:56:31 2015 No.6046656 >>6046632 Such as?

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:57:02 2015 No.6046659

>>6046627

>Whatever the coconuts are is impossible to say

So you don't know the difference between a coconut or a non-coconut?

>it's impossible...to say that there are really 4 of them.

Why? If they were really right there in front of us, would we not have to say that there are 4 coconuts? As to whether or not it is meaningless to say there are 4 coconuts, this is clearly not the case. Or would you be confused if I were to point to 4 such coconuts and say "here are 4 coconuts."?

>On the other hand we can be sure that every time we do that the relation between the sensory-intellectual experiences of having two coconuts and combining them with two more will always produce the experience of having 4 and you can expand this instrumental certainty to similar cases of experience.

So we only infer from experience that two and two make four? So it might be conceivable that two and two would sometimes instead make five? Surely you can't actually believe this.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 19:58:12 2015 No.6046664 >>6046656 Any idea whatsoever that is not of a particular entity. We distinguish the natural kind of dogs from the particular entities which participate in dogness, for example.

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:01:46 2015 No.6046674

>>6046659
>So we only infer from experience that two and two make four? So it might be conceivable that two and two would sometimes instead make five
The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. We couldn't imagine that because our brains don't allow it. This presumably maps onto the way the world works, because we can use it to effect change. None of this goes any closer towards explaining what is happening outside of our experience of it though except that it somehow correlates. The logical necessities are our version of something else, unless logic is in fact some objective law of the universe, a statement I have trouble even making sense of outside of the context of somebody interpreting it that way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:05:23 2015 No.6046684 >>6046664 Define dogness, please.

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:05:31 2015 No.6046685

>>6046674

So you deny that the law of non-contradiction (from which all of mathematics and logic is derived) is true? Surely you cannot actually hold this to be true...or else you would fall into saying all kinds of bizarre things like 'X is and is not a Y' and so forth.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:07:05 2015 No.6046694 >>6046684 What kind of definition would you find satisfactory?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:08:31 2015 No.6046700 >>6046694 Whatever you mean by it. Do you mean the sum of the physical attributes that make a dog a dog?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:10:18 2015 No.6046707 >>6046685 I question(not deny) whether the law of non-contradiction exists outside of human experience, and whether it is even meaningful to ask that question.

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:12:10 2015 No.6046716

>>6046700

By dogness I mean the essence of the kind of thing we call dogs. The sum of the physical attributes that make a dog a dog gets pretty close to this but runs the risk of misinterpreting the material cause as the formal cause.

>>6046707

It is in fact not meaningful to ask that question. Without the law of non-contradiction every proposition about the world is meaningless. The law of non-contradiction is therefore, as we are in the fashion of saying nowadays "objectively" valid, real.

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:14:06 2015 No.6046723

>>6046716
I meant meaningful in the sense that a 'law' is a logical construct and it isn't clear whether the type of 'meaning' necessary for a logical construct exists in the outside world. Do the 4 coconuts actually 'mean' 4 coconuts or is purely a way we categorize the world so as to be able to move about in it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:14:16 2015 No.6046726 >>6046716 So, then, what is the 'essence' of a dog?

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:22:47 2015 No.6046772

>>6046726

It's simply what it is to be a dog. That in virtue of which we call this kind of thing a dog and this kind of thing not a dog. I am no biologist, so I only have a common sense understanding of what a dog is, but I still understand what it is to be a dog nonetheless. We can approach an understanding of the essence through seeking to give definitions of dogs, and through experiencing many different animals that participate in dogness. The more we experience, the clearer our understanding of the essence of a dog becomes, until the point where we understand it completely.

>>6046723

Maybe I'm just a naive realist but I didn't fully understand what you were trying to say there.

Maybe we should get back to actually having a Hegel thread... :^/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:24:35 2015 No.6046782 >>6046772 >It's simply what it is to be a dog. And what is it to be a dog if not a simple biological definition?

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:27:44 2015 No.6046794

>>6046772
>Maybe I'm just a naive realist but I didn't fully understand what you were trying to say there.
I'm not all that articulate so don't worry about it. I was just musing about what meaning is and where we locate it, nothing particularly deep.

And yeah may as well go back to the purpose of the thread

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:29:15 2015 No.6046799 >>6046782 A dog is a type of animal, not a definition of a type of animal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:30:36 2015 No.6046804 >>6046799 Are you retarded? A definition isn't something in of itself, it is a description of the animal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:30:53 2015 No.6046808 >>6046799 inb4 wittgenstein posters

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:32:41 2015 No.6046820 >>6046804 I can very well describe something without apprehending what it is to be that thing. >>6046808 I'm not terribly familiar with Wittgenstien, what do you mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:39:37 2015 No.6046842 >>6046820 >I can very well describe something without apprehending what it is to be that thing. So you can try to define it?

Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:42:13 2015 No.6046855

>>6046842

Of course you can try to define something. When we give a proper definition of a thing, we apprehend what it is to be that thing. Definitions often fall short and are in need of constant revision and qualification, whereas the intellect is able to directly grasp the essence of a thing without necessarily being able to put it into words.

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:45:11 2015 No.6046863

>>6046855
>When we give a proper definition of a thing, we apprehend what it is to be that thing.
This is the crux of the disagreements you've been having in this thread. Kind of funny that this is in a Hegel thread actually, with all his talk about his strange process of apprehending things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:45:51 2015 No.6046865 >>6046855 All the intellect does is define, there is no 'grasping an essence' without defining what something is.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:49:55 2015 No.6046880 >>6046863 >This is the crux of the disagreements you've been having in this thread. I am well aware. >Kind of funny that this is in a Hegel thread actually The irony has not been lost on me.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:51:38 2015 No.6046890 >>6046865 Not everyone engages rigorously in dialectical inquiry. We come to apprehend the essences of things through our experience with them. Everyone understands what it is for one kind of thing to be what it is and not another.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:52:31 2015 No.6046896 >>6046392 Lol people like you are retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:52:59 2015 No.6046899 >>6046890 >We come to apprehend the essences of things through our experience with them. You mean define, not apprehend. >Everyone understands what it is for one kind of thing to be what it is and not another. through definition, internal or otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:53:57 2015 No.6046903 >>6046536 LOLOLOL STOP POSTING FOREVER AHAHAHHA

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:54:10 2015 No.6046904 >>6046899 No, I meant perfectly well to say what I did. People disagree with you. Deal with it. Do you have any arguments to contradict me?

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:54:12 2015 No.6046905

>>6046890
I think people differentiate between the definition you just gave of things being one thing and not the other, which is a definition of 'thing' that requires on purely contextual definition, and the thing itself, as it is, apart from its contrast to other things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:56:05 2015 No.6046916 >>6046556 You acted like a retard in a Hegel thread last night, and do it again You stumble over ever philo 101 topic, proving you've never read a goddamn thing, then posture hard You have no place on this earth

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:56:56 2015 No.6046917 >>6046904 You're just using words incorrectly. To define something is to determine what you believe it to be, so you are talking about definitions, you're just too stupid to realise it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:57:26 2015 No.6046922 >>6046567 "Subject experience" isn't "emotion", retard

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 20:58:04 2015 No.6046926 >>6046917 But don't you already have to know what you believe before you put it into words? :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 20:59:16 2015 No.6046929 TIL everyone on /lit/ is basically legally retarded when it comes to philosophy, and namefags are still the worst posters of all eternity

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:01:21 2015 No.6046938 >>6046929 Philosophy is the art of being so stupid that you make people confused about what they think they know completely clearly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:01:56 2015 No.6046941 >>6046926 Words are expressions of thoughts, definitions are used to know, as one knows personally what something is. This is expressed through words, and is a thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:02:57 2015 No.6046944 >>6046938 No, philosophy is the application of mathematical logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:05:36 2015 No.6046962 >>6046938 wait why are you in this thread if that's how you feel about philosophy

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:05:50 2015 No.6046963

>>6046938
Hey look, dude, I found philosophy deep enough for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaghIdSJKvQ

And after you've concluded rightly on this question, that you are indeed a basic bitch, you'll realize that being terrible at arguing, reciting useless words and being 100% predictable in all discussion is a useless talent and you'll reconsider your life choices.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:07:07 2015 No.6046971 >>6046962 >why are you in this thread if you believe in the socratic method. >>6046963 You're pretty mad dude.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:07:58 2015 No.6046973 File: 139 KB, 635x854, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm monitoring this thread >qualia >'dogness'

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:09:55 2015 No.6046979 >>6046941 Definitions are used to know...formal objects...right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:10:22 2015 No.6046982 T

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:10:28 2015 No.6046984 >>6046979 To know anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:11:41 2015 No.6046989 >>6046984 Lol so dumb So dumb

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:12:45 2015 No.6046997 >>6046984 So you grant that there are formal objects and that this is what we are referring to when we speak of what it is to be a thing? and furthermore, that this is apprehended by the intellect and not through "empirical datum"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:15:19 2015 No.6047009 >>6046989 Good argument. >>6046997 All knowledge is derived from the senses

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:15:27 2015 No.6047012 >>6046971 this was supposed to be a Hegel thread

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:18:19 2015 No.6047030 >>6047012 This guy is right. I'm leaving. >>6047009 Go back to the Greeks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:18:32 2015 No.6047032 >>6047009 >le never read kant

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:19:34 2015 No.6047037 >>6047012 Add the basic bitch satan guy to your filter. He's a charlatan attention whore, and thrives on being so retarded he angers people The only winning move is not to play

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:21:28 2015 No.6047044 File: 73 KB, 666x408, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6047030 >>6047032 >old dead white guys know more about the sciences than modern logicians, linguists and scientists

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:22:40 2015 No.6047057 >>6047044 Not the sciences, reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:24:04 2015 No.6047062 File: 75 KB, 459x581, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6047057 Reality can only be objectively interpreted by the sciences, not baseless posturing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:25:29 2015 No.6047068 >>6046452 just lurk if you don't know what's up

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:27:13 2015 No.6047078 >>6046556 >>6046627 >>6046659 2+2=4 is true in virtue of the meaning of the terms involved. It is not an empirical proposition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:27:15 2015 No.6047079 >>6046372 No one is going to talk about Hegel in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:27:16 2015 No.6047080 >>6047062 >using the same words in text as featured in the image posturing indeed

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:28:06 2015 No.6047084 >>6047062 We finally come full circle! >spend an entire thread trying to back up my position >still getting accused of baseless posturing by these fucking fedoras Have fun discussing Hegel guys I'm out of here for real now.

>>	Satan Atheist Sat Jan 24 21:29:13 2015 No.6047089 >>6047078 This was what I was trying to demonstrate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:29:16 2015 No.6047090 >>6046716 The law of non-contradiction is a law of language, not the world. Hence why it is not meaningful to ask that question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:29:38 2015 No.6047094 File: 46 KB, 339x398, Schopenhauer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Daily reminder that Fagel was a charlatan and his philosophy ultimately led to the death of a hundred million people

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:34:06 2015 No.6047109

>>6047090
Does the term 'law of the world' actually signify anything though? Wouldn't that require that the world is composed of meaningful stuff, instead of dumb inanimate matter? If that's what you're arguing then sure there's a case for that but that implies a great deal of other stuff

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:35:32 2015 No.6047116 >>6047084 Maybe if you had some evidence to back up your claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:35:40 2015 No.6047118 >>6047094 daily reminder that the first person to use language was a charlatan and his invention ultimately led to the deaths of billions of people

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:36:12 2015 No.6047122

>>6047089
You claimed mathematical objects were "real". Insofar as they are real, they must be known empirically, and thus presumably their nature is no more certain than physical objects.

"2+2=4" or "There are infinitely many prime numbers" are not propositions that refer to the world, they refer to abstract concepts that we know via definition (after some analysis). That is we define what "2" "+" "=" "4" mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:37:26 2015 No.6047127 >>6047109 Yes, the laws of physics are "laws of the world".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:39:14 2015 No.6047134 >>6047044 Have you ever read the philosophy of science?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:39:18 2015 No.6047135 >>6047127 Eh. Isn't that suspect purely on the basis that we reinvent them every century or so? Isn't it more accurate to say that the laws of physics are methodologies we employ to manipulate the world?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:40:53 2015 No.6047142 >>6047134 Yes.

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:43:26 2015 No.6047149

>>6047122
Numbers do refer to real things

It's virtually impossible to get someone to understand numbers without invoking their intuitions of space and geometry

The number line is abstract in no way different than the words "suburban house" is abstract.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:44:51 2015 No.6047157 >>6047149 So extremely abstract then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:45:34 2015 No.6047162 >>6047157 Not really, it's no more or less abstract than anything else

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:46:17 2015 No.6047165 >>6047162 my dick is pretty concrete

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:47:17 2015 No.6047170 >>6047165 Your idea of your dick is concrete in this moment, but your dick is always changing

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:48:00 2015 No.6047172 >>6047170 changing upwards in awesomeness

>>	Emil Liénard 2003 !vRiBH2uekA Sat Jan 24 21:48:28 2015 No.6047174 File: 333 KB, 2048x1817, 46464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6047118 daily reminder that this very comment will ultimately lead to the deaths of trillions of people

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:49:50 2015 No.6047178

>>6047149
You are missing the point. Numbers may very well refer to real things, but this does not change the fact that when we verify a mathematical statement, we do so analytically. It does not matter if our definition of "2" corresponds in some way to an object of the world, our knowledge of it would still be grounded by definition. The "2" of the world might change overnight, this would have no impact on our previous definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:53:00 2015 No.6047191 >>6047172 Sure, but the point is still that you never understand your dick in a concrete way, it's always tempered by who you are today

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:53:41 2015 No.6047193 >>6047191 Your girlfriend understands my dick in a concrete way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:56:18 2015 No.6047198 >>6047178 No, numbers are not "concrete" or "abstract", nor do they exist outside our minds

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 21:57:31 2015 No.6047205 >>6047193 LOLOLOLOL XD POST IT TO 9GAG

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:00:13 2015 No.6047215 >>6047198 Their existence is an empirical proposition. It has no bearing on our knowledge of number or mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:02:49 2015 No.6047234 >>6047205 I'm glad he did that to you and I hope every cancerous philosophical discussion you attempt to carry-on here is disrupted similarly

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:25:21 2015 No.6047295 >>6047215 That's patently false

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:28:09 2015 No.6047304

>>6047234
>he didn't start with the Greeks

" I will not even allow myself to say that where one is added to one either the one to which it is added or the one that is added becomes two, or that the one added and the one to which it is added become two because of the addition of the one to the other. I wonder that, when each of them is separate from the other, each of them is one, nor are they then two, but that, when they come near to one another, this is the cause of their becoming two, the coming together and being placed closer to one another. Nor can I any longer be persuaded that when one thing is divided, by this division is the cause of its becoming two, for just now the cause of becoming two was the opposite. At that time it was their coming close together and one was added to the other, but now it is because one is taken and separated from the other.”

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:28:23 2015 No.6047305 >>6047295 Even if we were to come up with definitions and axioms as a result of experience, our knowledge would still be based upon these definitions and axioms, not the phenomena that inspired them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:42:22 2015 No.6047361 >>6047305 Nope, that's completely false

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:45:02 2015 No.6047373 >>6047305 We created definitions, axioms and set theory to model phenomena, not vice versa No matter what, if mathematics wasn't based on intuition, it would have no use

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:50:50 2015 No.6047398 >>6047373 >We created more like evolution created brains that analyze the world that way

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:53:48 2015 No.6047411 >>6047398 Okay, but historically it's still obvious that math is a human creation, and is based on necessities from our intuition It's not like somebody randomly wrote down abstract rules and math was born

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:56:10 2015 No.6047417 >>6047411 It's an important distinction though. We're incapable thinking opposites are true at once, this is very different than us inventing that as a rule.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 22:59:35 2015 No.6047429 >>6047417 No it's not, it's totally possible and you're just spewing a bullshit line that intends to sneak through logical presumptions Study idealism more before coming into a Hegel thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:00:36 2015 No.6047431 >>6047429 >its totally possible that your wrong compelling argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:01:07 2015 No.6047435 >>6047398 Pedantic of me, but it's weird to say evolution created. The act of evolving is, well, not creation, but, uh, sorta? I dunno. Just makes more sense to say "we evolved".

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:03:10 2015 No.6047444

>>6047373
You are as thick as a rock. Mathematics may be based upon intuition, but mathematical propositions are verified analytically. We certainly do use axioms and definitions to model phenomena, but that has no impact on how we come to prove or understand mathematical propositions. Once we have the definition, truth is invariant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:04:43 2015 No.6047452 >>6047431 Right or wrong only exists in context, buddy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:06:54 2015 No.6047461 >>6047444 There is no definition without intuition, cunt. Even identity relies on intuition

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:11:15 2015 No.6047487

>>6047444
Look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

There is no "definition" that exists entirely ambiguously, ultimately, all systems do not work unless if the consistency of that system is place in the human subject. And you'll know what Godel did to the Hilbert program, if you understand what definition inside of a system does

There is no way to remove the subjective human element from mathematics, and the definitions/axioms we use are tempered by this subjectivity. What you're stating between the lines is "my subjective opinions of mathematics are true"

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:15:33 2015 No.6047512

>>6047444
Autocorrect butchered my last post

>There is no "definition" that exists entirely ambiguously, ultimately, all systems do not work unless if the consistency of that system is place in the human subject.

Should read: There is no "definition" that exists entirely unambiguously, ultimately, all systems do not work unless the consistency of that system is placed in the human subject.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:16:57 2015 No.6047517 File: 150 KB, 1167x501, hegel_explained.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6047429 >a Hegel thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:17:57 2015 No.6047523 >>6047444 >once we've made the assumption, the assumption is assumed to always be true kay

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:19:41 2015 No.6047528 >>6047517 Nobody on /lit/ actually understands the premises of Hegel It's impossible to get a discussion on the ground because people are too busy spamming bullshit to let anyone else speak I don't know why I even come on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:22:06 2015 No.6047534 >>6047528 what are the premises of Hegel

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:23:27 2015 No.6047540 >>6047528 Stop coming here for discussion on German idealism. Unless you're Zizek shit really doesn't matter. Go make a thread about the book you're reading or something

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:27:49 2015 No.6047561

>>6047534
Do you understand Kant? Because that's a prerequisite

If you do, the idealism that postcedes Kant rejects the noumenon altogether, thus meaning that our impressions of things are the "true" objects of reality, and all appeals to qualities of things in themselves is a deception

Hegel's take was to support Fichte's stance, but also to build on him, and constructing ideas of temporality not far from Heraclitus

I'm personally not even too "deep" into Hegel, I've barely scratched the surface, but the way /lit/ talks about him is proof they haven't read shit besides them misunderstanding rudimentary explication on Wikipedia or whatever

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:30:01 2015 No.6047569 >>6047540 I think not posting retarded shit about something you are ignorant of is preferred to not discussing fucking written works

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:40:52 2015 No.6047622

>>6047487
>>6047512
I don't see why you brought up the Axiom of choice, what is your point? It is independent of ZF, that is why we use ZFC.

Godel did not show that it is impossible to remove the "subjective human element from mathematics". He objectively proved certain things about formal systems.

>>6047512
The consistency of a formal system is independent of the human subject.

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:46:21 2015 No.6047657

>>6047561
I understand Kant fairly well, but what you just said doesn't seem to me to explain Hegel's relation to him. I was under the impression Hegel was a lot deeper than simply a rejeciton of the noumenon, that he invented his own type of ontology completely. I have to admit I really struggle with Hegel, I've read the first 100 pages of the Phenomenology at least 5 times, and I do think I'm progressing but he is just extremely unintuitive to me.

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:46:33 2015 No.6047659

>>6047622
The Axiom of Choice allows for "untruth" patently, dude, because it allows for arbitrary choice. It's subjective by definition.

I brought up Godel, because as you said his proofs work for FORMAL SYSTEMS, which disincludes the exact horse shit you're trying to peddle. It literally means determining the consistency of a system can't be done with "truth", it has to be done by intuition.

Not that id expect a retard who peddles "truth" to actually know logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:48:35 2015 No.6047671 >>6047657 That's the framework to start understanding Hegel. Being well learned in Hegel is virtually impossible unless you dedicate a large amount of time to it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:49:36 2015 No.6047675 >>6047659 >Axiom of Choice allows for "untruth" You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:52:19 2015 No.6047689

>>6047675
I put "untruth" in quotes for a reason. The axiom of choice allows a decision to be made arbitrary of the information of the system, and that choice lies within the human subject.

You can keep arguing, but you've absolutely shown you do not comprehend the ideas we are discussing

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:53:02 2015 No.6047695 >>6047540 Yes, everybody stop discussing German idealism because it obviously doesn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:54:50 2015 No.6047705 File: 15 KB, 195x190, feyerabend1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] All the >muh science people in this thread should fuck off and read Feyerabend. >mfw some nerd says "science has rendered philosophy irrelevant"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:57:29 2015 No.6047718 >>6047695 It obviously doesnt Just old white dudes playing games with axioms

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:57:54 2015 No.6047720 >>6047695 Funny because Hegel actually is the most talked about philosopher in western philosophy, beating out Kant, Plato, and Aristotle

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 23:59:42 2015 No.6047726 >>6047718 >old white dudes Has this become a pejorative?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:00:30 2015 No.6047734 >>6047726 If it hasn't it should

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:01:22 2015 No.6047741 >>6047734 How come?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:01:53 2015 No.6047742 >>6047720 I should have put that I was being sarcastic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:03:27 2015 No.6047749 >>6047742 I couldn't tell, I tried to make my comment ambiguous. So take it as I was supporting your sarcasm

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:05:12 2015 No.6047754 >>6047742 >>6047749 >i sware i waz being ironic guys pls

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:05:59 2015 No.6047757 >>6047741 The historiography and genealogical narrative of white males has been a hegemonic tool of oppression in the west since ever

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:07:02 2015 No.6047764 >>6047757 I know white men have caused lots of problems but they've surely also created good things, and there have been good white men?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:08:27 2015 No.6047771 >>6047689 You are the one that has shown an inability to comprehend the ideas at play. The axiom of choice is accepted as it is useful, it allows us to prove things. We certainly do decide on the axioms we use, I never claimed otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:12:01 2015 No.6047793 >>6047764 Sure, but there being good white men doesn't take away from de facto institutional aggression which has its base in tradition

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:14:05 2015 No.6047802

>>6047771
I don't disagree, retard. You're the one operating under the bias that subjective = wrong or subjective = bad.

You're literally reciting the same fucking mistake, over, and over. The axiom of choice can't be "computed", it can't be calculated systemically. The axiom of choice requires a subject to resolve a decision, as the information within the system cannot resolve it systematically. If you don't understand this, then you're just stupid, or so obstinate you cannot be reasoned with

(Usually logical people will be convinced by what's obvious, so it appears you are not so "logical" in your thinking)

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:17:54 2015 No.6047819 File: 120 KB, 451x559, pure ideology.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >2015 >still being a Hegelian in any way this board will never grew up, buncha pleb turds

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:18:18 2015 No.6047822

>>6046479
People have given you reasons but you continue to spam your conclusion about definitive objectivity and refuse to take a complicated look at what that means. If you are so set on spamming "everything is empirical" it shows that you don't understand what empirical means, and are just blindly committed to spouting it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:18:41 2015 No.6047825 >>6047793 That's surely contingent on white men(a minority of white men) having been the ruling class of society though? Aren't you actually railing against power and its oppressive ways?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:19:30 2015 No.6047828 >>6046503 That's a non sequitur, how does it even relate to you?

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:24:20 2015 No.6047841

>>6047802
The axiom of choice does not require a subject to do anything. It states (is equivalent to) that for any set of non empty sets there is a choice function defined on that set. We state this axiom and then go on to prove things with it.

>The axiom of choice requires a subject to resolve a decision, as the information within the system cannot resolve it systematically

What do you even mean by this? Resolve what decision?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:25:05 2015 No.6047845 >>6046567 >>6046567 why do u deny the very thing that makes u human. do u think u sound smarter by thinking ur happiness can be reduced to a percentage in the brain? u r the last man.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:25:37 2015 No.6047846

>>6047825

Sure, but that contingency is irrevocably linked with all historical contingencies, power maintains it's own interests and looks after it's own ends, and if the deck is stacked in your favor as a white male the effort required to gain influence in the social order is much less than that of, say, a black woman or an Hispanic man. Why this is so is contingent, obviously, on the interplay of knowledge and power on a class scale as well as a fictive one in the realm of normative modes of discourse, all of this basically reifies the existing order, entropy is always increasing toward max and the river will always take the easy road, social and cultural revolution notwithstanding

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:26:49 2015 No.6047851 >>6047802 >logical people will be convinced by what's obvious They will be convinced what is logical. What appears obvious at first, may be erroneous.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:34:29 2015 No.6047890

>>6047846
>Sure, but that contingency is irrevocably linked with all historical contingencies
I don't disagree but doesn't this further shift the blame from white men to all people who have held power and still do who aren't white men?
>, power maintains it's own interests and looks after it's own ends,
Yes it does, that is actually a tautology, not that I'm belittling the statement, it's an important one. I would question whether 'white male' is actually the interest at hand here. Is it not overwhelmingly just that people in power want to hold on to their power, give power to those they're connected with, and further their own causes? None of that presupposes a favoritism for white men
> and if the deck is stacked in your favor as a white male the effort required to gain influence in the social order is much less than that of, say, a black woman or an Hispanic man.
In reality nobody has a reasonable chance of becoming powerful at all. It doesn't matter who you are, you are extremely, almost cosmically unlikely to become powerful if you aren't born that way. That distinction is literally thousands of times as powerful as the ability for different sexes and races to rise from lower to middle class
> Why this is so is contingent, obviously, on the interplay of knowledge and power on a class scale
Men are not a class, neither are women, white men certainly aren't one. A class needs to be a group in society that has the same function, this applies to things like bourgeois/proletariat, it does not to groups of people who have statistical imbalances in power
> as well as a fictive one in the realm of normative modes of discourse,
Here I agree entirely, there has been a concerted effort for a long time to make the White Man the ruler of society, and it has infiltrated the minds of the populace. Much of this was already done for them by merit of white men having the power in the first place
> all of this basically reifies the existing order,
It does not, there have been vast demographic changes in the past 100 years among sex and race, which can't clearly be traced to changes in the intellectual sphere alone
> entropy is always increasing toward max and the river will always take the easy road, social and cultural revolution notwithstanding
Indeed, but no matter how many black women gain power, the powerful will still exploit and oppress the weak, the only difference will be that a subsection of them are black women. As to the lower classes, because lets be honest there are only two classes, yes I would like for there to be more equality between the races and sexes and I think that's a worthy cause.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:37:48 2015 No.6047898 File: 17 KB, 296x413, georglukacs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: people who cant understand Hegel dismiss him as unfalsifiable out of hand fucking refified bourgeois consciousness

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:40:18 2015 No.6047906 >>6047819 >calling Hegel "pure ideology" Zizek is a huge Hegelian. I don't think you have your facts straight

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:41:22 2015 No.6047909 >>6047822 The funny thing is, the only philosopher I can recall of who's so rabidly in favor of "muh objects" is ayn Rand

>>	Satan Atheist Sun Jan 25 00:41:47 2015 No.6047911 >>6047898 I know right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:41:59 2015 No.6047913 >>6047890 Welp, it looks like we agree for the most part.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:45:25 2015 No.6047921

>>6047841
That's not what "the axiom of choice states," the axiom of choice allows elements to be chosen ARBITRARILY, e.g., not formally. Just because the axiom puts the choice on subject to disambiguate and choose the elements doesn't mean it's been objectively defined

>What do you even mean by this? Resolve what decision?
Which elements to choose, dummy

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:47:24 2015 No.6047929 >>6047705 Why would you read a clown for that? You can just read the Churchlands for that position, and their arguments actually make sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:48:59 2015 No.6047933 >>6047921 >That's not what "the axiom of choice states yeah nah, you can fuck off now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:49:28 2015 No.6047936 >>6047898 What's there to understand?

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:52:37 2015 No.6047944

>>6047933
>being this literally retarded

Why don't you look up an actual definition for the axiom, rather than summarize your own words as rigorous?

You realize you're being incredibly subjective right now, right?

Don't look at "what the axiom of choice does" in simple terms. Look at it logically and HOW it works. Look at HOW it operates. Stop playing in definitions you're misunderstanding like an autistic pedant

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 00:54:40 2015 No.6047946 Do you guys realize that argument is only obstructed understanding? Who is right is supremely unimportant compared to people learning

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:00:25 2015 No.6047957 >>6047944 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice Have a read you might learn something.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:03:15 2015 No.6047970 >>6047957 Yeah, you're a clueless twat Do you understand what "arbitrary" means?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:04:28 2015 No.6047975 >>6047946 Apparently they aren't learning if they can't understand basic text >>6047936 Judging by popularity, the most relevant philosopher in history

Satan Atheist Sun Jan 25 01:06:58 2015 No.6047984

>>6047936

"Philosophy misses an advantage enjoyed by the other sciences. It cannot like them rest the existence of its objects on the natural admissions of consciousness, nor can it assume that its method of cognition, either for starting or for continuing, is one already accepted..."

-GWF Hegel

So many things you have the misfortune of being too dense to comprehend.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:08:50 2015 No.6047994

>>6047957
Let me copy paste to shove it in your face again:

Arbitrary - MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
"The axiom of choice allows us to arbitrarily select a single element from each set, forming a corresponding family of elements (xi) also indexed over the real numbers"
Arbitrary - MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
"The axiom of choice allows us to arbitrarily select a single element from each set, forming a corresponding family of elements (xi) also indexed over the real numbers"
Arbitrary - MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
"The axiom of choice allows us to arbitrarily select a single element from each set, forming a corresponding family of elements (xi) also indexed over the real numbers"

>but but but muh rigorous and undeniable justifications!

They don't exist, cunt, and Godel himself proved it with the incompleteness theorems. Way to be slow on the upkeep, and way to misunderstand everything as deeply as can be misunderstood

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:29:45 2015 No.6048079 >>6047705 Continental philosophy has always been baseless posturting.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:30:46 2015 No.6048083 File: 145 KB, 304x422, screen-shot-2011-06-01-at-5-44-24-pm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6047984 >continental philosophy is a science

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:33:19 2015 No.6048096

>>6046556
>I don't care that empiricists have thought about mathematics before. Their ideas are wrong. Mathematical objects are real, and we apprehend them through the intellect and not the senses. This is obvious insofar as you have never seen or touched the number 7.

Quine and Putnam are platonists you dunce.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:34:11 2015 No.6048099 File: 74 KB, 500x380, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6048083 >>6048079 >maybe this will troll them good!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:35:11 2015 No.6048102 >>6048099 Nice meme. I bet you didn't make it by posturing over unfalsifiable nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:48:51 2015 No.6048132 >>6046498 Quine and Putnam give an account of empiricism far more intelligent than the "hurr if i can't see it it ain't there" of the earlier poster

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 01:51:39 2015 No.6048144 >>6048132 That's because they aren't continental retards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 02:14:22 2015 No.6048213 >>6046573 Wow. That was really deep.

>>	Satan Atheist Sun Jan 25 02:22:03 2015 No.6048239 >>6048132 It's still wrong. Anyone who isn't a Dualist is a complete retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 02:24:22 2015 No.6048245 >>6048239 This is what Russell warned us about. We should revere philosophers and ideas because they are old.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 02:49:38 2015 No.6048307 >>6047921 i hate you so much

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 04:34:58 2015 No.6048490 >>6048307 you too bby

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 13:38:23 2015 No.6050262 >>6047975 Hegel is not popular amongst people that matter. Only amongst people that don't matter. He is the pleb's choice.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 13:45:29 2015 No.6050290 >>6048239 Vladimir Bekhterev refuted mind-body dualism via objective psychology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 14:07:15 2015 No.6050393 >>6050290 >Vladimir Bekhterev refuted mind-body dualism via objective psychology. ;^)

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:04:46 2015 No.6052267

>"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers
>that be, as the certified Great Philosopher,
>was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating,
>illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle
>of audacity in scribbling together and dishing
>up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This
>nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as
>immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and
>readily accepted as such by all fools, who
>thus joined into as perfect a chorus of
>admiration as had ever been heard before.
>The extensive field of spiritual influence with
>which Hegel was furnished by those in power
>has enabled him to achieve the intellectual
>corruption of an whole generation."
>- The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2 (1844)
>"But the height of audacity in serving up pure
>nonsense, in stringing together senseless
>and extravagant mazes of words, such as
>had previously been known only in
>madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel,
>and became the instrument of the most
>barefaced general mystification that has ever
>taken place, with a result which will appear
>fabulous to posterity, and will remain as a
>monument to German stupidity. "
>- The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2 (1844)
>"Now if for this purpose I were to say that the
>so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a
>colossal piece of mystification which will yet
>provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme
>for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo
>philosophy paralyzing all mental powers,
>stifling all real thinking, and, by the most
>outrageous misuse of language, putting in its
>place the hollowest, most senseless,
>thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its
>success, most stupefying verbiage, I should
>be quite right.
>If I were to say that this pseudo-philosophy
>has as its central idea an absurd notion
>grasped from thin air, that it dispenses with
>reasons and consequents, in other words, is
>demonstrated by nothing, and itself does not
>prove or explain anything, that it lacks
>originality and is a mere parody of scholastic
>realism and at the same time of Spinozism,
>and that the monster is also supposed to
>represent Christianity turned inside out,
>hence, The face of a lion, the belly of a goat,
>the hindquarters of a dragon, again I should
>be right.
>Further, if I were to say that this [Great
>Philosopher] of the Danish Academy
>scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal
>before him, so that whoever could read his
>most eulogized work, the so-called
>Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling
>as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify
>as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less
>right."
>- On the Basis of Morality (1839)

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature