/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11628278]

Hegel set out to save Kant from himself: Hegel had to ontologize Kant, reason shut up within the formal conditions of its possibility becomes a self-swallowing Ouroborous. The antimonies attest to this: metaphysics can't be approached apodictically, it thrives on analogy and metaphor, over and over the authors of the Upanishads stress the subtlety of sacred truth. "The Gods scorn what is evident": the gods scorn Descartes. The Cartesian fetishization of "clear and distinct principles" was thought in regress, not in exaltation. Hegel radicalized Kant's subconscious Parmenidean sympathies: if thought and being mutually entail one another, then the closure of thought must be the closure of being. Or, thought is just being negotiating its difference with itself - a difference that takes the form of thought. All subjects tarry with their immanent limit: the voice speaks to this. Why are some people weirded out by hearing their voice on a recording? Because you hear yourself as object. Something about it betrays the boundlessness of the interior: the Christian injunction to love another as yourself means to love another from the inside-out, to love one as they must be inside themselves prior to what they are: as bodies, as animals with animal appetites, strung between care and nothing. Giving someone the same benefit of the doubt that you're own Inside gives you. Loving someone in excess of their appearance: to love their nothingness, to love them AS nothingness. Beyond what they can be for you in this world. Hegel located the beginning of the subject's development in a remote, prereflexive past, but he can hardly be accused of reducing the subject to just an appendix of the process, indeed it is its very dialectical consummation. Hegel's point in transposing the limits of thought onto being is to get you to realize, arguably, his Copernican turn: that contradictions are not what threaten Thought but are actually constitutive of it. That beings always-already arrive at odds with themselves, that they subsist just as the negotiation of their inner impasse. No, that Mind itself is nothing but the gauging and overcoming of limits: Spirit is the stomach that digests itself. Don't you get it? We're a turbulence in the void. God flapping his arm on the surface of the Waters. One of the Upanishads opens with the call to harmonize thought and speech: to close the gap in yourself where the ego thrives like a spider colony. Hume was right there is no bridge between the "is" and "ought": the entire arena of human struggle has been erected to build that bridge, to throw a rope across what I am in myself to how others perceive me. Mysticism is a going into the desert of your self beyond social recognition until it sticks. Until you are convinced it's the social that must peel away, and not silence. Philosophy is a dress rehearsal for death.

[Anonymous No.11628287]

Hegel's doctrine of parties
and associations as the "private" fabric of the state. It ensued
historically from the political experiences of the French Revolution
and was to help give greater concreteness to constitutionalism.
Government by consent of the governed, but an organized consent,
not the vague and generic kind which is declared at the time of
elections : the state has and demands consent, but it also "educates"
this consent through political and trade-union associations which,
however, are private organisms, left to the private initiative of the
ruling class. Thus, in a certain sense, Hegel already goes beyond
pure constitutionalism and theorizes the parliamentary state with
its regime of parties . His conception of association cannot but be
still vague and primitive, in between the political and the economic,
in keeping with the historical experience of the times which
was quite narrow and offered only one accomplished example of organization, the "corporative" one (politics embedded in the econ
omy) . 1
Marx could not have historical experiences superior ( or, at least,
greatly superior) to Hegel's, but he had a sense of the masses
through his activity as a journalist and agitator. Marx's concept of
organization still remains entangled within these elements : trade
organization, Jacobin clubs, secret conspiracies of small groups,
j ournalistic organization. The French Revolution offers two preva
lent types : the clubs, which are non-rigid organizations of a "town
hall meeting" type, centered around single political personalities,
each with its own newspaper through which it keeps alive the
attention and interest of a particular, though loosely defined, clien
tele which, in tum, supports the newspaper's theses during club
meetings . Certainly, among the regular club members there must
have been small and select groupings of people who knew each
other, who met separately and prepared the atmosphere of the
meetings in order to support some tendency or another according
to the circumstances and the concrete interests at play. The secret
societies, which later became very widespread in Italy prior to
1 8 4 8 , were bound to develop after the Thermidor in France among
the second line followers of Jacobinism; with great difficulty during
the Napoleonic period because of sharp police vigilance, and
more easily between r 8 r 5 and 1 8 3 0 under the Restoration which
had a rather liberal base and did not harbor certain preoccupations.
It is during this period, between r 8 r s and 1 8 3 0, that the differentia
tion had to occur within the popular political field which already
seems notable during the "glorious days" of 1 8 3 0, when the formations
that were coalescing during the preceding fifteen years
come to the surface . After 1830 and until 1848, this process of
differentiation is perfected and produces some quite accomplished
types in Blanqui and Filippo Buonarroti.

[Anonymous No.11628292]

Makes me want to read Hegel. Very insightful.

[Anonymous No.11628299]

Fuck off A.W. we know it's you. Show your trip coward.

[Anonymous No.11628332]

>>11628299
Writing styles don't match

[Anonymous No.11628372]

>>11628299
Who's A.W.?

[Anonymous No.11628375]

>>11628372
He spent 5 years tripping on acid and reading Hegel. Don't listen to him, he is batshit insane.

[Anonymous No.11628387]

>>11628332
That’s a screenshot from one of these threads. Some anon pointed out something and A.W. forgot to leave his name off and so he says “read what I wrote”. A.W. is purposefully writing differently and not using his name to shill his little fanfic on here. He knows that if he appears too much like himself people will catch on and tell him to fuck off but the jig is up.

[Anonymous No.11628391]

>>11628375
If you haven't read Hegel on LSD then you plan just aren't qualified to talk about him.

[Anonymous No.11628405]

>>11628372
A Redditor who shills his blog on every random unrelated comment section that happens to mention Hegel on Reddit, and sometimes posts on /leftypol/.

He has an antiquated joke interpretation of Hegel, and responds to people talking about it by autistically demanding they read his blog until their minds naturally and automatically agree with him about everything. Generally considered to be a shrill unpleasant cunt.

[Anonymous No.11628505]

The tension between form and content is another way of expressing this difference: where do we locate the isomorphism between thought and being? What is the connect between the concept and the thing described, why can't we hear the "click"? If this question could be unequivocally answered, would concepts even exist? It is the groundlessness of phenomena that is their ground: the opacity of the Real is the very mother of conceptuality. See, God isn't the content of what we say - Love, Beauty, Truth, the Good - he is first and foremost the form of this saying. Content: to contain, what something is filled with, its insides. Form: the boundary, membrane that breaks up the undifferentiated breadth of being into intelligible wholes. I said membrane for a reason: God is a cell: Limit as such. God isn't some concept x, God is the concept of a concept: the pure formal guarantee of thought's eternal self-movement.

[Anonymous No.11629099]

>>11628505
>where do we locate the isomorphism between thought and being?
I am a math major who took acid
first time going on /lit/ but I think I've found home

[Anonymous No.11629110]

Mutual recognition doesn't prove shit- ever seen a bird in front of a mirror?

[Anonymous No.11630263]

>>11629110
But there is no recognition there, period

[Anonymous No.11630340]

>>11629099
Hegel would say it's located in precisely their incommensurability - their identity is paradoxically guaranteed by their non-identity, and this is the little trick of thought that Hegel wants you to get used to making, since it's at the heart of his system and the ultimate nature of the absolute

[Anonymous No.11630603]

i bet this schizo is the one who shits up trad threads

[Anonymous No.11631011]

>>11630603
stop accusing me of being your /lit/ bogeyman. I am my own person

[Anonymous No.11631080]

I never read these posts lol

[Anonymous No.11631237]

This is definitely sophistry at its finest

[Anonymous No.11631315]

>>11631237
I don't think you know what sophistry is

[Anonymous No.11631516]

>>11628278
Love the posts as always, OP is liberating Hegel from the historical prison of memory week after week.
Apropos, I’ve been wondering if you’ll ever consider entering formal academia. Do you feel too old/beyond it?

[Anonymous No.11631611]

>>11628505
Imagine that nothingness at centre as a complex interrelated network of consciousness responding to sense data while another series of networks structures and combines this data with abstract data and produces through the bias of that individual linking of networks a "We" that snaps fingers in a forest with no one around.

[Anonymous No.11632016]

>>11631516
I respect the training academia gives you, like the level people write at, but I do feel it'd kill the spontaneity. I like reading until a dam bursts and it all comes pouring out like this. Glad you like.

>>11631611
>through the bias of that individual linking of networks

Nice.