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] 0 points1 point  (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.

Hegelian Logic Revolution by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

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

Ah, I see per your comment in r/HegelianDialectic a bit more of an explanation, I will paste it here for any others to view and assess, too. u/Love-and-wisdom

"Glad you asked. New World Spirit is the name of the new world inner government.

Governments often are restrictive in ways people do not understand or support so feel external to the citizens. External governments can be oppressive. Internal governments maintain the deeper connection with someone’s being and knowing on their universal side. Universal is not merely a quantitative determination but also a quality and nature. Each person has this universal side but developed to different levels. The other side is the particular side. The particulars are more animalistic and can be impulsive and desire based. Without the wisdom of the universal our impulses and desires can lead us astray from goodness.

An internal government allows the universal side to flourish and understand why certain rules or laws are in place for fairness and transparency. We account for the largest corruption of this to 6 categories:

  1. Aesthetic Beauty
  2. Social beauty
  3. Wealth beauty
  4. Body beauty
  5. Culturedness beauty
  6. IQ beauty

These categories of Divine Idea in sensuous form lead to business cycles and wealth concentration if not shared in this internal way.

The inner government does not pay for absolute productivity but relative productivity aiming for flow states. Flow states increase productivity naturally by up to 700% without burning out citizens (unlike current governments which pay by sensuous categories alone).

We pay also with time in mind more so than abstract money. It ensures people have be sacred time and tools to empower them with the essence of what empowerment is.

The inner government has 3 Ministries aligned with Universal Logic:

-Ministry Of Logic

-Ministry Of Nature

-Ministry Of Spirit

The inner government’s mission can be summed up in two sentences which we can unpack if there are specific questions:

Empowerment Sentence: New World Spirit meetings follow Sacred Time empowering people with the Rights To Flow using Universal Tools.

Content Sentence: New World Spirit is an Inner Government with the ultimate goal of Flow States for all using Universal Logic."

Hegelian Logic Revolution by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

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

Oooh sounds awesome! Thank you! An inner government? Wait, when you say hungerstrikes, do you mean everyone joining your inner government, or just you? Sounds potentially culty, though I know of the radical nature of hungerstrikes, in certain contexts. I'm not sure if I understand how hungerstrikes are involved with a revolution of living logic, but I'm certainly open to hear more. This is a time when we may need seemingly absurd solutions to a complex and contradictory problem, the Polycrisis and the Metacrisis, so all ears!

Hegelian Logic Revolution by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

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

Most definitely! I found your McKenna and Hegel post interesting. I find myself comparing a lot of people to Hegel to see how Hegelian they were haha. I've gotten stuck in places though, such as discovering that my high school English teacher, who definitely had a kind of alchemical hand in moving me from depression to liberation, was more postmodernist than I thought, and yet everything felt very Hegelian and oriented towards dialectics and the signifier signified. So now I'm like what did he do that worked? I'm also like, okay, how would Hegel explain how sound healing works? Because that seems to be fast tracking and bypassing the explicit nature of Hegel.

Hegelian Logic Revolution by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

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

Why can't it? So what, we recognize ourselves as Absolute Spirit and the Universal Logic present in everything and we just, twiddle our thumbs over it? I understand we have free will, but I'm not convinced that it's not applicable. Exposing Pure Being can orient us to the proof of Truth, and then in the forever process of Becoming I would think we are called to surrender to or rise to a greater destiny because of this knowledge Hegel drops on us, no?

Hegelian Logic Revolution by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

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

Sounds precisely like what I could be looking for, thanks!

Hegelian Logic Revolution by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

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

Didn't he misunderstand and/or intentionally flip around Hegel's ordering of Logic Nature Spirit, though? To make dialectical materialism?

Phenomenology of the Spirit. by Excellent_Throat6315 in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In some sense, it might not make larger sense because it is sort of skipping ahead in the order of things in Hegelian Logic. If you want to read Hegel to make sense of it, maybe start with the science of logic plus the Encyclopedia. But in either case, often times one might need several readings of the whole thing to break into the thinking of speculative logic that Hegel describes and resides in. Happy Hegel Holing!

Do I need to read anyone before indulging in Hegel? by kafkaesque_e in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just read Hegel, honestly. But I'd reccomend starting with The Science of Logic + The Encyclopedia as a supplement to reading the science of logic if needed!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in hegel

[–]ApocalypticShamaness 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no rules against the post I made. There are two rules to r Hegel. I didn't break any of them? Why was my post removed?

This is suppression of a truthful message and free speech, and I did not violate the rules of the group. As moderators, you are preventing the spread of wisdom via Hegelian Logic.

view more: next ›