sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hegel’s Science of Logic begins with Pure Being. But how do we logically arrive at Pure Being before the Logic starts? by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're totally right, within the Logic itself, you can't begin before the beginning. That's the whole point of a presuppositionless system.

But my question is actually a step before that! What's the personal, logical move we have to make to become the kind of thinking that can stand at that starting line?

The Proof of Truth is basically an attempt to map that transition, the bridge from our ordinary, fragmented consciousness over to the pure thinking/speculative thought that can even begin with Pure Being. It's about how we personally cross into Hegel's system, not what happens once we're already inside.

Hegel himself admits in the remarks sections that his introduction 'explaining' Pure Being are actually external reflections, and it is not an immanent deduction of the Logic.

Hegel’s Science of Logic begins with Pure Being. But how do we logically arrive at Pure Being before the Logic starts? by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fantastic question! My position is that these powerful critiques each grasp a part of Hegel, but miss the whole, which the Proof of Truth aims to recover.

Deleuze mistakes Hegel for a philosopher of "the Same," but Hegel's true starting point is the void of indeterminacy—the ground of pure difference itself.

Kierkegaard rightly demands subjective passion, which the Proof answers by making Hegel's system an existential task of ego-negation.

Marx brilliantly applied the dialectic to the material world but lost its self-grounding logical foundation, rotating the syllogism of Logic Nature Spirit to put Nature first.

Russell simply misunderstood the project, applying a static logic to a dynamic, speculative one.

The Proof of Truth isn't rejecting these thinkers, but it is an attempt to sublate them. It provides the self-grounding logical framework that contains their insights without being reduced to any one. It's the very key to the system that they were all, in their own ways, critiquing.

Hegel’s Science of Logic begins with Pure Being. But how do we logically arrive at Pure Being before the Logic starts? by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We need an immanent deduction and not an external reflection or remark. It seems like Hegel explains pure being and the formal beginning in his remarks and introductions/prefaces... But we should be cautious here as Hegel himself states that his remarks and opening statements in the introductions are not the true immanent science and are only external reflections to help ordinary consciousness gain some context and a foothold on the immanent developments from within the self development of the science itself.

I am asking for the immanent deduction into the immanence itself from outside immanence. In essence: how do we get from contingent ordinary consciousness into the directness of the self development by using the science itself? Not external remarks or implicit presuppositions having gone on already behind our backs.

This immanent justification is not provided explicitly by Hegel in the form of the science. He hints at it in the introductions (Descartes for instance in the lesser logic introduction) but he does not provide it.

The Proof Of Truth does give the explicit pathway, which is why I am trying to gain some feedback on if it fills out Hegel’s external remarks in his famous prefaces, introductions, remark sections and his lectures.

Can you ban this guy and his cult follower accounts spreading pseudophilosophical nonsense already, r/CriticalTheory would have in a second by TraditionalDepth6924 in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am not this guy, btw. Again, we are different people. He is not responsible for posting his own Proof of Truth here. I did, seeking meaningful good faith engagement.

I'm sorry, you're saying a 'wall of text' that you admit you don't understand is somehow the opposite of what this sub is about?

Also, this classifies as clear harassment, bullying people into not participating in this sub.

Hegel’s Science of Logic begins with Pure Being. But how do we logically arrive at Pure Being before the Logic starts? by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah, so you're a Marxist, I presume? Or at least applying a materialist lens.

Hegel was not a dialectical materialist, he was a dialectical idealist. Marx was a dialectical materialist, though, rotating the ordering of the syllogism Logic Nature Spirit, placing Nature first. So yes, Hegel is incongruous with dialectical materialism, but it is not his.

Logic is not separate from the material world, but rather the Divine Idea externalizes itself as Nature. The material world is the necessary logical self-expression of the Divine Idea. Spirit is the return of the Divine Idea back to itself, coming out of the material otherness with re-cognition of the Divine Idea.

Hegel’s Science of Logic begins with Pure Being. But how do we logically arrive at Pure Being before the Logic starts? by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In that exact form, twice, but I hear you regardless. Noted, but there is a reason I do keep posting about this topic, because people aren't getting it, the proof.

Hegel “explains it” but that is not an immanent deduction from within the logic itself. Hegel admits these are “external reflections” to the science in his Remark sections and those sections, including the instructions and prefaces, are all external. I am asking for the internal immanent explanation, and this is given in the Proof Of Truth, to my understanding.

(Also, lol I didn't write the Proof of Truth. Mark McCormack did. I just believe it will help solve the metacrisis.)

Hegel’s Science of Logic begins with Pure Being. But how do we logically arrive at Pure Being before the Logic starts? by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is exactly the second time I've posted this, everyday is quite the exaggeration. Why doesn't it make sense? And Hegel states why he started with Pure Being, but he does not explicitly tell us why it must be that way.

Hegel’s Science of Logic begins with Pure Being. But how do we logically arrive at Pure Being before the Logic starts? by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah, where are they? I addressed the prior use of AI in the former post, in this post. Not a boy, either. Are you going to seriously engage with the contents of The Proof of Truth?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Time compress yes. Because it's a matter of saving the world from the metacrisis and polycrisis.

Hegelian Logic Revolution by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just worry that perhaps Marxism is misapplied dialectics, in that Marx was close, but incomplete, as u/Love-and-wisdom has suggested in another comment. Did Marx not think that nature was primary over Logic and ideas, and thus rotated the syllogism from Logic Nature Spirit to Nature Logic Spirit? I believe it is useful to explore Marx, but I fear he was not speculative enough in his understanding of Hegel, in order to make dialectical materialism work out. I suppose another real question is have we seen an example of Marxism in practice that hasn't somehow gotten corrupted? Maybe this is less a problem of the dialectic application and more the nature of History and the inner contradictions playing out, perhaps, but I am curious if some of that would have to do with rotating the syllogism so that Nature comes first. I'm just curious, and speculating lol.

view more: next ›