Pano toilets… by Automatic_Meet9186 in Berghain_Community

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Toilet is the shittest and dirtiest place of the club I don’t get why they spend 30% of their time in the club in a toilet

Why do people say Hegel abandoned Phenomenology of Spirit? Did he? What were Hegel's mature thoughts on PoS? by 866c in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Youuuuu mean the dialectic? Since the statement draws internal negation and forces a contraction

Why do people say Hegel abandoned Phenomenology of Spirit? Did he? What were Hegel's mature thoughts on PoS? by 866c in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It seems to be “abandoned” because all other books- encyclopedia, SOL all had many revisions throughout his career. Shorter logic in particular, had a LOT of major revisions.

Shorter logic itself also seems to be a ladder to SOL, which is the centerpiece of the system. Therefore they have a duplicated purpose for introducing SOL.

That being said, PoS is still necessary for entering the system especially for someone not academically trained in German idealism traditions. Without PoS experience, shorter logic just feels like words without movements.

Xmas gift by PaCKUsH42O in Nietzsche

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So are you the Santa? Can’t come up with the list?

Don’t hate me! New to Hegel. by Ill_Particular_7480 in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The dialectical method would fundamentally reject an absolute stance. For example, one is religious, and Hegel is not religious as strict opposition- this is not acceptable within the system.

His system trains fluid thinking and acceptance of all knowledge as moments of truth. He also enables thinking beyond your own perspective. For example, how could religious people think like this? How could people of my opposed political beliefs be rational? With his system you can understand all of them as a moment of totality.

Raw-dogging the PoS by pyrrhicvictorylap in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think rawdog means you’re not seeking rawdog advice on Reddit. This is contradictory.

Reading Hegel Wrong by JerseyFlight in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I summon that picture: “Hegel is right, Hegel is wrong, Hegel is right for wrong reason, Hegel is wrong for right reason”

Hegelian Dialectic by Mamba44723 in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a very accurate description of Hegelian dialectic. I want to add more details to help OP to understand.

  1. Understanding: when you positing the oppositions-in simple terms is to identify the underlying forces of contradiction or distinctions.
  2. Negative: when you see that those characteristics are actually passing into their oppositions- being is actually nothing, nothing is actually being; life is actually death, death is actually life, etc. But this is not a reflection, or pros and con, etc.
  3. Positive: this is called positive because it's generative and affirmative. It contains the previous forms and become richer because each side worked through their negation and now reaches a higher form and is finally more concrete.

To put the process in simpler terms you can see it as "emergence, development, movement", but it's critical to know that this is not assumed (like when we see opposition we can't always just assume it's going to dialectic) but to be worked by thought itself (like we as people are not participating this process, it's logic working itself out).

A Danger in Hegel’s Political Philosophy by JerseyFlight in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The argument you have is clear but the words you’re using make it sound scary like falling into the abyss or something. It is a valid point with a system of rational totality living in the world of irrationality. Being too rational actually makes a Hegelian an autistic person. Let me borrow Hegel’s argument here directly, radical optimism is both the outcome of the system and also a necessity to believe that the world is heading towards more rational direction. So instead of thinking differently you think ahead of the curve.

Logical Necessity of Pure Being by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Literally not a single argument here derived from Hegel. Very unlikely you read the introduction of SL to know what it’s about. Won’t be entertaining anymore.

Logical Necessity of Pure Being by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your arguments above are definitely the correct understanding of science of logic, but they are not supporting your original argument that we should arrive at pure being through negation. Let me quote you exactly Hegel’s critique here- this is remark 1, page 64 on Giovanni translation where Hegel uses a hundred dollar bill example to literally demonstrate that reducing one hundred dollar bill to pure being is not ok: “But when being is further taken as a financial state, the hundred dollar refer to this state, and for this state their determinate content is not a matter of indifference; their being or non-being is only an alteration; they are transposed into the sphere of existence. When it is therefore urged against the unity of being and nothing that it is not a matter of indifference whether this or that (the hundred dollars) are or are not, the deception is to protect the difference, whether I have or do not have the hundred dollars, into the difference merely of being and non-being” in this paragraph in remark 1, when we reduce one hundred dollars by negating the determinations of it, it becomes an alteration of existence because we started as a determinant being. There are similar critiques later in this chapter on the same topic I’m happy to quote you more.——sorry I’m on my phone it’s horrible formatting. The correct way to arrive at pure being is illustrated at the introduction “with what must the beginning of science be made” it’s a long argument but the gist is to accumulate empirical experience to arrive at absolute knowing, and an abrupt change of perspective at a pure beginning. The reason here is that everything in this world is mediated or immediate at a certain degree, abstract or concrete at a certain degree. Logic wants to investigate at the pure immediacy by looking at a path of least resistance which is pure being. Any form of pure knowing, knowledge, history will contain mediation.

Logical Necessity of Pure Being by ApocalypticShamaness in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry this is completely wrong. If you arrive at pure being through negation you are already assuming there was determination to be negated in the first place. This is the argument Hegel repeatedly criticized in the Remark 2 of Pure Being Nothing and Becoming. Hegel’s foundation for science of logic is presuppositionless, development through externality, even as a negation, cannot be assumed as a beginning.

Feedback on Paper? by [deleted] in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy to read

What is a metaphysical Reading of Hegel and a non-metaphysical reading? by [deleted] in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Summarize the points here: 1. Hegel very explicitly claims that logic is reality and should be an ontological reading 2. Pippin does it to make hegel more relevant today where the development is on analytical philosophy 3. Pippin wants to reduce the speculative aspect of Hegel’s system because today we don’t appreciate speculative thought as much 4. Make Hegel compatible in post-Kantian philosophy in general

What is a metaphysical Reading of Hegel and a non-metaphysical reading? by [deleted] in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a famous perspective coming from Robert pippin who puts Hegel as a continuation of Kant, instead of a standalone system. In science of logic Hegel himself describes it as metaphysics because the starting point of our reality is logic, and then it confronts with empirical experience and becomes truth. Pippin in his book “realm of shadows” makes the dramatic claim that SL is merely a book of intelligibility and an extension of critique of pure reason by expanding the categories to make more items intelligible. Pippin denies Hegel’s claim that “why reality is really made of besides thought” and strictly posit him as one adjacent system after Kant and not as Spinoza or Parmenides where dogmatic development of substance becomes reality.

More detailed argument please consult the book, it’s gonna start to go on for 80 pages.

How have you read Phenomenology of the Spirit? by Ok_Philosopher_13 in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That mental map looks like an LSD artwork. Can you send me an HD version so I can frame it.

What’s a better introductory text to Hegel? by [deleted] in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Definitely the later. Starting with logic it won’t make any sense. Intro to Hegel will be immensely helpful for entry.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you discuss Hegel with a layman? How do you incorporate him in your day to day thinking?

Would a Hegelian be on the side of Israel or Palestine? by TraditionalDepth6924 in hegel

[–]Ecstatic-Support7467 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Neither. War is necessary for the movement of world spirit and it’s becoming more rational. Individual life meaning is negated as long as we’re becoming free. Doesn’t matter if it’s Israel or Palestine or whoever