/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13654537]

Damn... Hegel is truly a genius

[Anonymous No.13654563]

>shit out schizo tier word salad
>people somehow start thinking you're one of the most important philosophers of all time
Absolute mad lad.

[Brainlet No.13654568]

As most philosophers he is just a quite verbose idiot

[Anonymous No.13654572]

>>13654537
It's, like, *deep inhale, through held breath*, like my mind is... ummmm, watching itself, like, think... And *rapid exhale*, now I'm watching my mind watch itself I guess I dunno.

[Anonymous No.13654573]

Looks like an undergrad essay waffle

[Anonymous No.13654579]

>>13654537
This is why I don't bother with philosophy, sophistry as a science

[Anonymous No.13654591]

>>13654573
smoke cannabis and read it again, it makes sense

[Anonymous No.13654593]

>everyone thinks its crap
>no one can identify an argument to rebutt
ITT true intellectuals

[Anonymous No.13654603]

>>13654537
Of course all things beget themselves, perpetuate themselves. Reason produces more reason and attempts to subsume all other things. Capitalism (the meta meme) attempts to subsume all other things. Particular instances of reason such as holons or memetics attempts to subsume the "other" of reality or qualia etc.

This has been expressed many times over in different words. Like fucking duh. Everyone else in this thread who doesn't get this are retards.

[Anonymous No.13654614]

>>13654603
cont. tldr; "Universal Darwinism". Get with the program people.

[Anonymous No.13654615]

>They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."
>He said to them, "You read the face of the sky and of the earth, but you have not recognized the one who is before you, and you do not know how to read this moment."

[Anonymous No.13654618]

Well, I guess Schopenhauer was right about this hack after all.

[Anonymous No.13654628]

>>13654603
>all things beget themselves, perpetuate themselves
that's not the point anon

[Anonymous No.13654636]

I love it when Hegel filters the summer retards

[Anonymous No.13654652]

>>13654628
Well, try to convince me otherwise.
>adopts the attitude of "meaning" and "perceiving"; but not in the sense that it is certain of what is a mere "other", but in the sense that it is certain of this "other" being itself.
concords perfectly with my interpretation.
>it seeks merely its own infinitude
also does as well
honestly every single sentence in there concords with my interpretation quite clearly imo.
Really though, provide your own interpretation or argument against my own. I've never read Hegel so honestly I'm quite open to the possibility of being wrong, but it seems quite clear to me.

[Anonymous No.13654653]

better translation/screenshot for you. what Hegel is getting at is the recognition of the other not only as consciousness, but that the object for that consciousness is already consciousness itself. seeking to minimize this supposed difference, to recognize yourself in the object (and the object in yourself) you flatten distinctions, bringing consciousness towards a (Spinozian) infinite

[Anonymous No.13654659]

>>13654652
gave a short analysis here, there is a lot of dialectical nuance you miss by skipping the previous 239 sections but it should illustrate the point

[Anonymous No.13654672]

>>13654593
I think Hegel is great, but his insights are quite similar to say Patanjali; the difference being Hegel thinks this view we have of the mind is developmentally creative of newer more complete synthetic knowledge whereas Patanjali says the more we proceed through the stages of viewing our mind at different levels of remove the more we should empty them of content in order to reflect more purely things themselves, almost the opposite of the process Hegel here identifies but only in so far as stairs upstairs and downstairs are the same stairs structurally. I guess the standard modern western philosophical critique of Hegel is that it's rather whiggish and in effect metaphysical as it presupposes purposeful meaningful evolution and even an eschatology that relies ultimately on rather irrational foundations.

[Anonymous No.13654677]

>>13654653
In other words: I am what I am conscious of ?

[Anonymous No.13654688]

>>13654537
>dude what if we took Fichte and turned his careful nuanced regulative posits and turned them into a batshit constitutive metaphysical system
fucking wank

[Anonymous No.13654705]

>>13654677
yes, but not in a reductive sense whereby you become what you perceive (although there are moments like that in the development of consciousness), rather that the relation between you and what you perceive is consciousness itself. A conciousness without an object is not a consciousness, and an object without being-for-another is not an object. both are a part of the same relation, not separate catagories (i.e. subject and object), but rather moments in the larger whole of the absolute

[Anonymous No.13654713]

>>13654653
>>13654659
Reading that I'm just getting the same interpretation as before. Am I correct in interpreting the fractal like dialectic as reaching an infinite loop in sublation with consciousness?

[Anonymous No.13654727]

>>13654705
Thank you, great explanation

[Anonymous No.13654770]

>>13654537
Damn, how wide was this fucking book?

[Anonymous No.13654777]

>>13654713
pls respond...

[Anonymous No.13654789]

>>13654713
it helps to understand the Spinozan definition of infinity, which isn't so much based on time or space (loops) as the unique attributes

[Anonymous No.13654816]

>>13654705
Is there a point in reading hegel if we have phenomenology and hermeneutics nowadays? I have easier time understanding those but I just cant into hegel because of his way of description. It just doesnt make sense in my head at all the way he says it.

[Anonymous No.13654822]

>>13654789
>it helps to understand the Spinozan definition of infinity, which isn't so much based on time or space (loops) as the unique attributes
Reading the pic related also concords with my interpretation really. Maybe the jargon is just different.
Consciousness ~ (any) Object => Consciousness

Consciousness as it is stipulated by Hegel is idempotent wrt sublation and subsumes all things to infinity. I never mentioned anything relating to specifically space and time.

[Anonymous No.13654852]

>>13654563
NPC alert

[Anonymous No.13654860]

>>13654822
>idempotent

How is it?

[Anonymous No.13654877]

>>13654593

>>/lit/thread/S13208492

[Anonymous No.13654880]

>>13654822
>subsumes all things to infinity
what does this mean? and yes, loops do imply space and time by the very nature of what a loop is lmao

[Anonymous No.13654894]

>>13654877
>his system the highest that any human brain has produced.

that's not plotinus...shankara

[Anonymous No.13654904]

>>13654688
The most even-handed criticism so far.

[Anonymous No.13654910]

>>13654816
He was just bad at conveying his ideas, don't buy anyone telling you otherwise. But he was still a genius.

[Anonymous No.13654915]

>>13654615
interesting analogy

[Anonymous No.13654936]

>>13654860
Well I can't explain why the definition of consciousness would make it idempotent wrt sublation, but that appears to be what Hegel is saying. He is sublating the conscious self with the object, and the relation of which is also consciousness.
>It seeks its "other" while knowing that it there possesses nothing else but itself: it seeks merely its own infinitude
>in the sense that it is certain of this "other" being itself
>"Meaning" and "perceiving"... are now superseded by consciousness in its own behalf
What else could it be saying here? There is no other interpretation and all other interpretations I've seen just concord with what I'm sayiing.
>>13654880
Because consciousness ~ object => consciousness (my current interpretation), and "object" is a variable that can take on any "thing", all things are sublated into consciousness.
I have a background in mathematics so "loop" doesn't necessarily imply anything about space/dimensionality to me, though one can get pedantic about this I won't go there. I mean essentially it is a recursive pattern that iterates through all "things" (like a programming "for loop".

[Anonymous No.13654950]

>>13654910
I dont deny that he was very intelligent and creative but the way he writes is impossible to understand. It takes so much time. Maybe someone likes it or have a lot of help but for self study I think it is not worth it. Maybe if we all sacrificed shitposting on chinchin then we would have that time. It takes so long to get it all that you could read other hard works and be done with them sooner and read some contemporary interpretations of hegel instead.

[Anonymous No.13654957]

>>13654860
tldr; it is idempotent because my interpretation here is that consciousness ~ object => consciousness. Under the operation of sublation, consciousness is idempotent with the set of all "things", thus subsuming everything to what I've been told is the spinozian infinity.

[Anonymous No.13654959]

>>13654537
Sorry for being a pleb, but is it possible to read Hegel as fiction? I mean, as a theory? I guess it's possible, since Hegel is one of those brilliant philosophers who can write about the problems of the present or about whatever we can imagine and we can think of as being just "here" for him to explain, but his prose is not really about us at all and does his work from our perspective - not as our world view, but from our thoughts, desires, passions, ambitions, and even some of our unconscious desires. I mean, philosophy and literature become the same when you are not a scientist and just the thinker, because the scientist is the kind of person who doesn't know anything so he can't write about it, so what he writes is from our experience.

[Anonymous No.13654962]

>>13654959
dude, everything is a fucking theory.

[Anonymous No.13654963]

>>13654957
Does Hegel ever speak about retroductive anamnesis?

[Anonymous No.13654966]

>>13654615
>>13654915
To add to that, if we would go by some theories stretching to greeks, and in that that they considered "inner voices" ie thoughts, the speakings of gods/spirits, it sheds a light onto that verse. They, are asking "HIM", and he speaks to them directly, literally into their minds. Hegel is coming to the same conclusion

[Anonymous No.13654976]

>>13654963
I wouldn't know, I never read hegel, I'm just asking the guy who has in this thread if I'm making any sense LOL.

[Anonymous No.13654984]

>>13654603
>>13654652
I'd agree with you anon, but I feel this passage conveys the fact that reason as a unique way to be aware of itself and self-perpetuate. Your analogy with capital (in the landian sense I suppose) is very on point. When Land said that capital is becoming sentient and self-expanding at our expense he's describing something that behaves a lot like Hegel's Spirit, even though capital is obviously less abstract than Spirit.

[Anonymous No.13655000]

>>13654936
>consciousness ~ object => consciousness
what does "~" mean? if you mean it as negation, as in "consciousness without an object is consciousness" you are going totally against Hegelian dialectics. wait, if you are a programmer, you know for a fact that for loops take operate through time (space in the sense that there is a check taking place, but that's getting into the metaphysical weeds)... the words "object" and "thing" have very specific meanings in Hegelian terminiology, so you might be saying something meaningful, but as a Hegelian this:
>"object" is a variable that can take on any "thing"
is more confusing than enlightening. I know this is sort of ironic given the thread, but can you explain this more simply? you are trying to use the philosophical terminology and when you do that wrong it makes it way more confusing that you might think it does

[Anonymous No.13655007]

>>13654537

[Anonymous No.13655048]

>>13654936
>>13654957
I think you're getting it. Being conscious that your consciousness is a relation to an object is still being conscious. Once consciousness becomes aware of itself as a thing which is aware of itself, it will keep reflexively include more objects in itself until everything effectively has become that consciouness.

The tricky part perhaps is that Hegel is not merely talking about the consciouness of a particular human, but something larger of which individual human consciousness is but a moment.

[Anonymous No.13655069]

>>13655000
>you are trying to use the philosophical terminology and when you do that wrong it makes it way more confusing that you might think it does
Understandable. I'm taking "~" as the operation of sublation. I'm not a programmer, I'm educated in mathematics. Recursive loops as mathematical objects have no relation with space or time, I know this for a fact, stop saying this lol. I believe I am using "object" correctly as in pic related.

[Anonymous No.13655078]

>>13654976
damn... nobody knows

[Anonymous No.13655128]

>>13655069
show me proof of a for loop operating on a computer which does not take any time to run, it's an absurd idea (mathematical abstractions aside, the actual operation of a for loop must take place in time (when else would the check happen other than in time?)). Hegel was trying to overcome the distinction of object and subject so your pic probably isn't helping you understand, let me reiterate from another part of the thread:
>A conciousness without an object is not a consciousness, and an object without being-for-another is not an object. both are a part of the same relation, not separate catagories (i.e. subject and object), but rather moments in the larger whole of the absolute
by consciousness seeking it's own infinity, Hegel does not mean it seeks to sublate every object (obviously an impossibility), but rather it seeks to exhaust the external distinctions (attributes) as aspects of consciousness itself, reducing the distinction between subject and object to a unified monist consciousness, which, by knowing all external attributes as part of it's own consciousness reaches the Spinozian infinite (that is, consciousness has no attributes outside itself to compare itself to, as the object is no longer outside the subject)

[Anonymous No.13655184]

>>13655128
The pic is literally what hegel states in the beginning of the passage then he goes on to show that it is a moot distinction, as do I in my interpretation. (für uns vs für es). It is the starting point, and the whole point of this passage is for the distinction to become moot. So yes it does help me.
>Hegel does not mean it seeks to sublate every object (obviously an impossibility)
why
>it seeks to exhaust the external distinctions (attributes) as aspects of consciousness itself, reducing the distinction between subject and object to a unified monist consciousness, which, by knowing all external attributes as part of it's own consciousness reaches the Spinozian infinite (that is, consciousness has no attributes outside itself to compare itself to, as the object is no longer outside the subject)
yep. I know.

[Anonymous No.13655205]

>>13655128
>show me proof of a for loop operating on a computer which does not take any time to run, it's an absurd idea (mathematical abstractions aside, the actual operation of a for loop must take place in time (when else would the check happen other than in time?)).
>wow, it takes time to process hegelian reason? It must be related to time...
>Hegel exists in space and time? Must be related to space and time...
hopefully this illustrates the point.

[Anonymous No.13655272]

>>13655184
No, he doesn't state that at the beginning of the passage? Have you read the Phenomenology? he uses the terms being-in-itself, being-for-itself, being-for-another, being-in-itself-for-another, ect. specifically to avoid the baggage involved in dealing with "subject vs object". by this point in the book it's already assumed you are thinking in terms of modes of being, he's not "showing" us this more than he is anywhere else in the book. that is not the point of the passage, the point is about development of consciousness, specifically reason gaining universal interest through the recognition of the other as its own. This should be reminding you of Lordship and Bondage, if you read that chapter (the bondsman winning self-consciousness through the mastery of the thing)

[Anonymous No.13655318]

>>13655205
Hegel existed in space and time, he was a man like you or I. or do you mean Hegelian dialectics take place in space and time? that's also true, he was a philosopher of history, remember. the point about loops and space and time was about the Spinozian infinite, which is not a conception of infinity concerned with space or time but rather a freedom from unlike attributes (unlike attributes always implies another substance, and substance is only infinite because it is singular, there is no other substance. it's a very strange, non-mathematical conception of infinity)