I've been reading "Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole" of the Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts and I've been struggling to understand some parts, since I'm not much familiar with Hegel's philosophy, or with philosophical texts as general. So I want to make sure that my interpretation is going in the right direction and one passage that I'm not really being able to grasp it's meaning it's that:
>A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.
>
>||XXVII| A non-objective being is a non-being.
>
>Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it – it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another – another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing – a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) – an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself – objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
>
>Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being – and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object.
"A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object" what does it mean to be an object for another being? What's the relation of that with people, society and reality? Is it wrong to assume that it means something like that we exist for each other in a society, that we n
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Internet conspiracy theorists have interpreted Hegel’s philosophy as an instrument of social control used by a shadowy cabal bent on implementing a New World Order https://www.logically.ai/articles/hegelian-dialectic-conspiracy-theory
Edit: This was not written by an AI lmao. I know the writer! he's a journalist with a degree in philosophy. the piece was then edited by another journalist with a PhD in Hegel. The bad philosophy is the problem-reaction-solution bit haha
I came across this sentence:
For György Lukács, Marxism is closer to the Hegelian Wissenschaft than a conventional science in so far as it “does not acknowledge the existence of independent sciences” but rather portrays “nothing but a single, unified--dialectical and historical--science of the evolution of society as a totality.”
I've been trying to make sense of it for the past hour. It's part of my reading for a seminar so I'd greatly appreciate any help. Thanks!
Really struggling to figure out what Caesar is on about.
I've been getting increasingly interested in Lacan, and I'm finding that a large part of my difficulty in understanding his ideas comes from the diversity of their inspiration. Lacan has many different lines in his thought, which I've mentioned in my post title (and which I'm sure are not exhaustive).
Is it productive to try to focus on one line? Or to try to view Lacan "on the whole?" Is it better to place him in some other context (I have to admit I don't know much about psychoanalysis in general).
If it helps you answer, I originally came across Lacan while reading some Levi-Strauss as part of an anthropology and early civilizations class.
Needless to say that because of the CIA's influence over the media, we have to be extremely skeptical about all events. It's fine if you hold on to a certain ideology yourself, but that doesn't mean you will follow whatever everyone else does just because they share your ideals.
The whole fiasco with Trump and Hillary, who I'm sure are still friends with each other should be a good reminder of this.
So I was listening to partially examined life ep. 135. At about 52 minutes they read a quote by hegel that says that "the logic of mere understanding (I assume formal logic) is evolved in speculative logic and can and will be elicited from it by the simple process of omitting the dialectical and reasonable element". The quote makes it sound that Hegelian logic is the next stage of Aristotelian logic, and somehow the latter is contained and can be derived from the former. I just can't wrap my head around it.
Hegelian logic seems to be based on many assumptions (like the world spirit) that to me, make it quite different. Maybe it has to do with being or the spirit as kind of a superclass to all things, but even the form of rising contradictions from within a system of knowledge and eventual sublation of that system don't seem to me like any formal logic I know. It seems to be based on assumptions (that the negation of the system mist arise from the system itself) whereas Hegel talks like this dialectical form of thinking is the basis of all knowledge.
I just started learning about hegel, reading the phenomenology and listening to these podcasts about him, so I may be very very wrong on everything I know about Hegel.
So my question is, how can you get Aristotelian logic from Hegelian?
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1359206439458385926?s=19
the gift that keeps giving
Disagreeing with it for whatever reason is one thing but some people flare up and froth at the mouth at the very mention of the word as if they were possessed of demons and consider it the most evil concoction of the human mind. What's the deal?
Thanks.
A lot of people tend to see the right and left divide as kind of unquestionable, while It's fine to use them as a guide to understand how the perspective have affected people historically and maybe think about your ideals yourself, people also have to keep in mind how the narratives behind them has been manipulated in order to justify fights between the different groups. Capitalism has been associated with consumer society and vulgar social darwinism, while socialism has a similar relationship with totalitarianism. While It's true that both have been used for such purposes, It's not something that is part of what these ideologies are, It's simply how they were used by elitist groups in history.
People should take a step back and keep that in mind in order to create their own ideologies and figure out how people's perception has been manipulated over time.
Theists that I have come across use the argument that:
- Something cannot come nothing
- Thus, something gave birth to existence/being as we know it
- This, something is God, the necessary being who is the first cause of everything.
But this entire argument treats being and nothingness as separate "entities"- the very point that I have to call nothingness an entity is proof that Hegel is correct about his dialectic where nothingness becomes being and being through its indeterminateness becomes nothing- something which Hegel refutes by showing that Nothingness and Being are one-sided abstractions from an internal relation whose only truth is becoming, and thus Being and Nothingness cannot be separated from each other. Doesn't this provide ample logical proof that theists cannot prove "God", though this "something from nothing" argument?
Thanks in advance!
We have a set of beliefs that are presented merely for the sake of themselves, acting on for the sake of themselves, and hence with a lack of relevancy or focus on the actual world, instead being locked in an imaginary world, the beliefs get more and more extreme, in order to act as the greatest negatives toward each other. However, the beliefs meaning only stems from the fact that they are absurd opposing forces to each other, but never in the actual content and meaning of the beliefs themselves. Hence with little positives and extreme negativeness, the only progression can be that utterly irrational actions are partaken which will inevitably lead to utter political collapse. The political-extremists will thus manage to sublate each others ideas only ever in conflict with each other, and as they are inconsistent, leads only to the revelation of the utter void of meaning inside the beliefs fought for. It is then that either the project is abandoned, or the project reaches its natural conclusion, a spiral of increasingly worsening fighting amongst peoples defined only by their blind faith and adherence to an ideology like a cult-worship and not a genuine upholding of principles. So ironically, all political-extremes reflect no extreme at all, only the eventual extreme of totalitarian esoteric cults warring amongst themselves until their is either a victor, or the people within the warring cults get angered over their oppression and overthrow the madness being allowed.
German philosophy is not my specialty and I haven't read any Hegel in a while. I feel like I managed to conflate the two concepts somehow but it doesn't feel right. Any insights would be appreciated.
The average PMC member, all the way up through his billionaire paymasters, has never experienced any real adversity in his life, other than the vagaries of random chance that plague us all. Unless you want to count not getting into the right college or occasionally not getting billions of dollars of free government money as adversity. But more importantly, this life of softness has led to them having shit aesthetics. Visually; morally; physically; it's G-A-R-B-A-G-E. Unlike the handsome fucking devils of this sub.
Just came back from a midnight marathon in the snow with my nudist buddies and they mostly agreed with me on this. Not saying I have all the answers or anything and a lot of this stuff is still over my head lol.
I don't really know if I disagree with anything here per say but I love you guys and I'm on board with your economic program as long as you accept Naruhito as a living God, descendant of Amaterasu, and rightful holder of the Chrysanthemum Throne.
lmao just kidding. nobody is going to read that garbage. here's a picture of kyoko giving makoto an ahoge job instead.
https://i.imgur.com/OR2BvXf.png
What does Hegel mean when he calls something simple?
In his book "Philosophy for non-philosophers" he says "Idealistic practice of Philosophy" and "Idealistic Tendency of Philosophy"
What does that mean?
If our subjectivity and way of looking at the world is constructed by the cultural/material environment and our place in it and relation to other things within it, why are certain people able to break away from that kind of thinking? What causes these philosophers to be able to "see the world for how it really works", when average people usually live embedded in their culture?
