/lit/ - Literature

dialectics

>>13627099
Absolute spirit and being being a dualism w non being (synthetic statement) and becoming being the analytic statement

>>13627099
ngl i took interest in him after reading how he cucked schopenhauer of his audience

>>13627887
>being being a dualism w non being
you didn't get it

>>13627825
this picture is more valuable than all of hegels writings

>>13627099
He read Kant, Plato, was a historian, lived in the most tumultuous times in history, at the center of so many source forces that would determine the fate of the world for the coming centuries and yet managed to keep his mind from slipping into another shape of the times but to realize what these shapes were, their story and possible meaning of nature, it’s frozen going no whereness, and spirit, fire breathing triumph towards freedom - what’s there not to like

>>13627099
Christianity as Absolute religion;

Universal subjectivity, as in we're not several atomized particular minds, but we only are in so far we are to Another:

>Self-consciousness exists in and for itself inasmuch, and only inasmuch, as it exists in and for itself for another, i.e. inasmuch as it is acknowledged. It is therefore essentially one only in duplication, and reveals itself in a number of traits which have to be kept firmly apart, and yet reveal themselves as always melting into one another, and dissolving this apartness. (Phenomenology of Spirit §178)

And the collective/social fundamental aspect of man, our customs and institutions, is precisely what is called Spirit;

Grounding the effectivity and reality of an idea through historical investigation;

The indispensable role of negativity (the dialectical moment) in the historical development of concepts. The negative stage or "dialectical principle constitutes the life and soul of scientific progress, the dynamic that alone generates immanent connection and necessity for the body of science" (Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences §81). Fundamentally, "dialectic is the true nature and essence of all things predicated by mere understanding - the law of things and the finite as a whole (Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences §81). Dialectic constitutes God's power. Everything in the finite world cannot remain the same before the universal and irresistible power of dialectic, no matter how stable and fixed it is.

It's worth noting that not even God can escape this negativity. Since for Hegel, to fully become God, God had to negate himself and descend to the painful sphere of objectivity (He became man), entering universal human subjectivity through the person that was Jesus of Nazareth. The Father became Father when his Son became a historical reality.

There's probably a lot more, but this is pretty much the basis.

>>13627099

He DESTROYS sensegoloids without even trying. Plato and Adi Shankara throw them a couple of bones, but Hegel runs them over and doesn't even notice.

>>13627930
Not contradicting u but wat r u adding?

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5k.htm

The refined air of fraudulency.

>>13628055
interesting post anon

>>13628133
Hegel says pure being and nothing are the same thing, this is why becoming is necessary
>wat r u adding?
What does this thread add anon? Whole thing is pretty shit

>>13627099
The parts where he plagiarized Kant

I have never really read Hegel, only articles, posts here and videos about him. So I know what he talked about without having in depth knowledge. What would you recommend as perquisites to reading Hegel? So far I've only read about morality and ethics philosphy and have tackled many greek, roman and Christian medieval works about said branches.

>>13628815
the point is not that "being and nothing is the same thing, we need becoming to solve this", but that in the process of deriving this "sameness" what actually happens is that being dissolves into nothing because it is a completely empty concept, and nothing dissolves back into being because in thinking "nothing", nothing "is". The truth is not "being and nothing are the same" but merely this movement from one to the other and back, and THIS is becoming; becoming is not introduced from above as if to solve a deadlock, it arises from it.

>>13627099
I don’t know who this is but he was heavily influenced Böhme the shoemaker and managed to combine his own philosophy of history with the philosophy of his own place and people

>>13630672
>>13628815
Here, from the greater logic (where he explains himself more and better rather than just giving the exposition which makes it come across as unjustified):

>So the whole true result that we have here before us is becoming, but a
becoming which is not the merely one-sided or abstract unity of being and
nothing. It consists rather in this movement, that pure being is immediate
and simple and for that very reason is just as much pure nothing; that
the distinction between them is, but equally sublates itself and is not. This
result does also assert, therefore, the distinction of being and nothing, but
it asserts it as one which is merely intended.

>>13627944
/thread

>>13630706
>>13630672
The quote you pasted (badly) wholly agrees with my quote that the only distinction between pure being and nothing is intention, did you even read it before you pressed post?
>being and nothing is the same thing, we need becoming to solve this
I said it was necessary, not that we needed it for a solution to something. Did you literally just misquote my post and then pedantically rundown the notion of "solving" even though I literally never used that word? What level of sophistry are you on anon? This is spectacular...

>>13630735
You say
>Hegel says pure being and nothing are the same thing, this is why becoming is necessary
which is not useful for someone trying to understand what Hegel is on about. The difference between "becoming is necessary" (if this is not explained) and "we introduce becoming to advance" (which is more like what the anon you were replying to pasted) is irrelevant in this case

>>13630752
>not useful for someone trying to understand what Hegel is on about
I didn't come into this thread to teach anyone about Hegel, I came into this thread to spot pseuds and point out they don't know what they are talking about
>b-but people that don't know what they are talking about don't know what you are talking about
that's why they are pseuds. fuck off back to r*ddit please

>>13630771
sure, that is why you replied with a (bad attempt at) explanation and a screenshot to the anon who asked you what you meant. i hope you gain some self-awareness in the future anon

>>13630778
this was the original post faggot
>>13627930
if people knew what they were talking about it would have been totally uncontroversial

>>13627099
It's amazing to me how philosophy progresses. He made up the idea of thesis-antithesis but not in the way that we think of it today. His idea of thesis/antithesis was as a fundamental part of the person rather than how history evolves. Yet, the only times you'll hear about his thesis-antithesis ideas is what other people (most famously Marx) based off of it, that history was an organism much like a person and that, thus, it developed in the same way. His writing is only really a building block of what he is now known for.

>>13630820
>He made up the idea of thesis-antithesis

>>13630822
*popularized

>>13630820
what is this garbage

>>13630838
Hegel only got the position of chair of philosophy after Fichte died; Fichte was one of the founding figures of German idealism, and his thought was wildly influential at the time. Hegel himself even associates the logic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis to Fichte (and criticizes it at the same time). People only associate it with Hegel if they don't know anything about German idealism

>>13627099
his penguin face

>>13627099