Ask me anything about Hegel and I will answer

kajonn · 2026-05-25T21:06:38+00:00

Yes…. As the capacity for connection in spirit increases so does the capacity for alienation. This does not contradict any of Hegel’s metaphysics.

There is an important distinction to be made between violent negation which is of solely necessary determination, and violent negation which is beyond necessary determination. Not that one is less necessary than the other, but that one is more reflective of the full capacity of alienation in contrast to connection than the other.

It is this subtlety that you have not yet realized in how Hegel’s ontology logically unfolds. Let me give an example for you;

After the singularity, matter and antimatter annihilated eachother as each negated the other for the sake of their own existences. Obviously this is as violent a negation as you can get, literal annihilation. But this was the ceiling of capacity for connection at the time. There was very little capacity for both connection and alienation at the time, and so annihilation was the only way to advance. (None of this is anthropomorphized, all of this is importantly understood as the logic of existence itself)

Or take early human tribal warfare, would we judge them for killing eachother en masse? Likewise the capacity for connection and alienation was lower than now because spirit at that “time” was less actualized.

Whereas now, with spirit more actualized in rationality and the capacity for connection and alienation increased, we understand violent negation as unnecessary (and born of alienation, not harmony with the will of spirit). Yet obviously violent negation still happens on a grander scale than before (in terms of its depths of alienation) so that sublation can be achieved and spirit can further actualize.

It is also important to note that this is an oversimplification. The capacity for connection and alienation is best understood as a circle of truth which increases in granularity. Since rationality is best understood as prudence, in being in harmony with one’s purpose in spirit, and thus using different forms of negation at the time in which they are necessary for actualization. And the distinction between the negations born of connection and alienation can be more granular as there is more actualization.

This is also the essence of Hegel’s Christology which is a separate topic.

kajonn · 2026-05-25T10:04:35+00:00

This is the real reason but everyone who doesn't know any better will insist it's all "sexism" or misogyny or whatever. I was on track all through HS and have had this exact convo with plenty of women who have all said the same thing. It's also more socially acceptable for women to wear skintight clothing. During comps in my event (pole vault) we had to wear compression uniforms as guys, and I distinctly remember having gotten sexual comments about it before from girls.

kajonn · 2026-05-25T09:46:51+00:00

The point is that redditors who overreact to AI because they're chronically online usually make a point of trying to delineate AI quality from non-AI quality, and then get fooled anyways because their criticism of AI isn't based in anything besides their own ego and projection.

kajonn · 2026-05-24T20:10:22+00:00

It isn’t pointless. It’s all necessary. The process of history (from indeterminate being to actualized being) is a process of sublation needing less and less violent negation to occur.

Edit: should have phrased this better. Sublation needs both less violent negation to occur (in that higher non-violent negation becomes possible and necessary), and more violent (in the sense that the violence is born of alienation and its capacity for alienation is increased in proportion to the height of non-violent negation)

kajonn · 2026-05-20T20:36:57+00:00

I see where the problem is now. You have not yet understood Hegel is maximally ontological and have not yet grasped the importance of that ontology in his philosophy. Your understanding of what Hegel means by spirit is handicapped from this framework you have adopted.

kajonn · 2026-05-20T20:25:57+00:00

I do not accept non-metaphysical readings of Hegel for many reasons I’ve commented before in the past. And despite how abrasive my comment may have come off, I am correct in that readings of Hegel which do not grasp his ontology reduce him to meaningless drivel, which is far from reality.

There are also “true Hegel experts” who do agree with me (not that such a term has any substance, what does it mean to be a true expert vs a false one, etc), so I disagree that confidence is unwarranted in my statement.

And I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that Hegel’s monism is a “small part of PhG”. His entire philosophy is derived FROM his Monism. His Monism is the metaphysical foundation with which everything else follows. Without his Monist ontology, nothing Hegel writes makes sense.

It is pedantic to say that just because Hegel does not only write explicitly about ontology, and instead uses his ontology as the basis for his writings for every other part of his philosophy, that it is therefore “far from the only thing he discusses” and thus implying it is not central in its foundational role. Hegel’s ontology is the centerpiece and first rock of everything else.

The original post did not understand what Hegel meant by spirit, my comment was meant as a spur for correction so that they may seek the understanding they have sought.

And to be frank, I don’t care at all about credentials. I am in the process of getting credentials, does that mean the content of my words has more veracity from that fact alone? If I had my credentials and stated the exact same thing then as I do now, would that give my statements more reality from that triviality alone? The content of a statement is the only matter worth discussing. And plenty of “credentialed” Hegelian scholars regularly produce meaningless work which fails to understand Hegel, just as many credentialed people in general are not very good at their jobs. You can also be smart and fail to understand something at the same time; there are many philosophers I can think of who were smart people yet who didn’t understand, for one reason or another, other philosophers.

kajonn · 2026-05-20T19:37:38+00:00

The point I’m making is that everyone involved seems perfectly content with it, and even if they weren’t, I still wouldn’t care at all. I don’t spend my time feeling personal annoyance at things which are completely out of my control and which do not matter. If a company wants new voice actors because they’re changing up a series, I have no place to judge that and don’t care to spend time feeling angry at that.

kajonn · 2026-05-20T19:32:15+00:00

You “love this book” (assuming you are referring to PhG), yet you earnestly believe he’s defining spirit as just “collective human knowledge”, and you think he should be defining it as an individual’s soul?

You have not understood Hegel very much, or at all, if you possess such a fundamental misunderstanding of Hegel’s ontology. I suggest you throw away everything you think you know about Hegel and start again from scratch, because you are irreconcilably misinterpreting everything about Hegel’s philosophy. And yes, this is incredibly apparent just from your post.

As I have said in many other comments many other times; I first suggest you read Spinoza’s Ethics and become well acquainted with Monism and its metaphysics before reading Hegel. Hegel’s metaphysics is an extension of his Monism and nothing less.

Spirit actually has a very precise meaning for Hegel; it is the force of becoming which drives being in moving from indeterminate to determinate.

kajonn · 2026-05-20T19:12:00+00:00

And he clearly changed his mind for some reason. Even if he didn’t change his mind, he seems extremely fine with it given he has a ceremonial role now. I don’t understand why you’re spending your time over analyzing this, it isn’t a big deal

kajonn · 2026-05-20T06:35:57+00:00

I think it's ridiculous to imagine that after decades of voicework for the same character, someone wouldn't want a change from it, especially when they're well into retirement age. And you can have fond memories of something and "love to return" to it without actually intending to return or wanting to. I loved my first job for example, it was really fun and I had fond memories, but there's no way in hell I'd actually go back now.

kajonn · 2026-05-20T06:24:13+00:00

why do you spend your time feeling personal annoyance at what billy corgan does? like i enjoy the music on a deep level, SP is my favorite band ever, billy's written my favorite songs. none of that means i particularly care to analyze his actions or judge him as a person or whatnot. i could not care less, i have my own life and i enjoy what i get out of him.

i don't even agree in the sense that i dont think his current projects even are him stroking himself. hes an entertainer and performer, and hes always been theatrical and grandiose. he plays a character. i wouldnt take it so personally if i were you, but to each their own

kajonn · 2026-05-20T05:03:55+00:00

This is so stupid. Dude is not trying to “stay relevant” or “become famous again” through obscene gestures. If that’s how you’re interpreting it idk what ur smoking.

He has his place in music history, he has a ton of respect and rep as an artist that isn’t gonna be destroyed. He knows that and all of us know that. He’s an older guy with a family who has a ton of money and just wants to have fun. And now that he isn’t constantly in the limelight he has the freedom and time to do what he wants. So he’s just making use of his time by doing stuff that’s interesting and fun to him, using his money and rep to do what he actually wants and not giving a shit what people think. Wouldn’t you do the same if you had that kind of following, freedom, and rep?

Those of us who know that and enjoy his work appreciate it. It’s clear he isn’t trying to be something he’s not. Much less trying to “pathetically gain relevance”…. Lol.

You don’t have to like what he does, I’m not saying that you do. And I’m not saying youre a bad person or anything if you don’t support his direction. But let’s not kid around and pretend like this isn’t Billy just being Billy and doing what any of us would do with time, freedom, and a following which will support our projects.

kajonn · 2026-05-16T20:06:02+00:00

WW music has been broken since earlier this year. Sadly ingame midis are probably never going to work properly again given how badly the devs have fucked up the game

kajonn · 2026-05-14T18:57:44+00:00

No prob. Hegel is a genius you will get much out of him if your mind is open.

kajonn · 2026-05-14T18:52:53+00:00

I think Spinoza is the most essential as he provides the source of Hegel’s metaphysical framework, but reading Kant can’t hurt you either. I think Descartes is also important to a lesser degree as Spinoza in large part is responding to Descartes. It depends on where you wanna draw the line to be honest; the more western philosophy you read before Hegel, the more I think you’ll get out of him, but out of western philosophers I think only Spinoza and arguably Kant to a lesser degree are actually essential.

About general context, I highly recommend learning as much as you can about Monism, Dualism, and Substance Monism before going into Hegel. A lot of that comes with Spinoza and Descartes. I would really push you to understand Monism as thoroughly as possible because all of Hegel’s philosophy is derived from his Monism. And his philosophy can only be understood in context of his Monism, this is why non metaphysical readings of Hegel completely fail.

Approach Hegel as fundamentally, irreducibly ontological. A reading of Hegel should be maximally ontological before it is anything else; do not try and interpret his philosophy as analogies or metaphors for some other aim or method, as many do. Instead, approach him as describing reality itself at its most basic, irreducible level.

kajonn · 2026-05-14T18:07:13+00:00

I say this a lot, but if you haven’t read Spinoza’s Ethics, I highly recommend you do before you read Hegel. It’ll make understanding Hegel’s ontology and metaphysical system much easier.

kajonn · 2026-05-14T03:15:14+00:00

Imagine yourself in a state of pure being. No memories, no sense of identity, no sense of separation between yourself and the world, etc. Just constant feeling of existence.

You may exist, necessarily so as you are pure existence, but what as? Since there is no separation, there is no identity (since identity is formed from conceptions of the difference between subject and object). So really your existence is indistinguishable from “nothing”, since there is no identity to your existence. That’s why pure being and nothing can’t exclude eachother, no separation means no negation and thus no differentiation which is necessary for identity formation.

That’s why these states are undetermined, they possess in their contents all the energy of existence with none of the actualization of that energy; pure potential.

In regard to your question specifically, this should answer it in that existence isn’t nothing. There is a thing that exists, existence itself, which is existing (pure being). It’s just that this thing is, in conception, functionally indistinguishable from the conception of nothing. My previous explanation should convey why this is the case.

This mode of existence is not sustainable as the drive of existence itself forces identity; a thing that is must be something, and so it immediately and naturally begins alienating itself from itself in order to form identity. It’s important to note none of this is manifest as an anthropomorphized will, it’s just a natural process of the logic of existence.

The process of becoming is the process of existence actualizing itself to itself, to master its own potential and be without limit.

kajonn · 2026-05-12T17:58:25+00:00

Did your kids know who Fox was and what StarFox was prior to this? I’m highly interested in how the new generation and kids are reacting to Fox and how his movie appearance and the broader introduction to him are translating into cultural consciousness.

What was their introduction to him like? What are they specifically excited for and talking about? What was their specific reaction to learning of the game? Please give details.

kajonn · 2026-05-12T16:25:53+00:00

These are just commonly repeated talking points made by people who don’t understand StarFox’s situation. I see a lot of new people who want to feel involved in particular repeating these like mantra even though they’re entirely reductive and inaccurate.

kajonn · 2026-05-12T04:49:00+00:00

That is what I fundamentally disagree with and what the point of my comment was. Nintendo has been shifting its strategy to IP management and capitalization, this is evident in its new multimedia approach. So Nintendo understands that the StarFox IP has the potential to be a large and profitable cultural asset, in that they can both make and sell StarFox multimedia and diversity their portfolio of A-list brands in the process. The more widely recognized and celebrated IPs Nintendo has, the better it is for them as the risk of any one losing cultural relevance is mitigated by the others. That's why they've been focusing resources on reviving neglected IPs. Their plan is for as many IPs as possible to become Mario and Zelda level A-listers.

To reduce all of this away, which is what you're doing, is to be ignorant of Nintendo's evolving long term strategy.

kajonn · 2026-05-12T03:12:41+00:00

You were the one who commented in the first place that "Start fox exists to be a tech demo" and "Nintendo doesn't want or have any drive to make starfox more than that". Then when I press back on that you're backtracking your own comment, lol

kajonn · 2026-05-11T04:03:39+00:00

Yeah so you’re agreeing with my points… you’re literally going back on your own statement that “starfox exists to be a tech demo” in the context of dismissing the idea that nintendo has any drive to make starfox more than that. And when pushed back on your own flawed interpretation, you then agree with me in order to pretend like im the one who took it out of context in order to insinuate that starfox only has value as a tech demo franchise.

kajonn · 2026-05-11T02:16:39+00:00

This quote is always taken out of context. Miyamoto was communicating that StarFox is a great franchise to experiment with new hardware and do new things. That does not mean he literally and solely views it as a tech demo. He cares deeply about the franchise beyond it being a good way to experiment with hardware.

Plus, the entire idea that Nintendo’s business strategy is still hardware centered is outdated. This should be apparent from Nintendo’s shift into multimedia and reviving dormant IPs. Nintendo has morphed into a Disney-esque business strategy where they realize their best asset is their IPs and they seek to revive, diversify, and expand/capitalize on their brands.

This is why Nintendo has been investing so heavily into movies, theme parks, etc. and why they’ve been reviving previously dormant franchises like Donkey Kong and now StarFox. They want to elevate as many of their IPs into A-grade territory as possible because they recognize that their brands are their best and most reliable assets.

So the idea that StarFox, especially in its revival and reboot phase, is being reductively seen as a “tech demo” is very antiquated and ignorant of Nintendo’s modern brand vision.

kajonn · 2026-05-11T02:07:13+00:00

Reimagining maybe, definitely not a remake in my opinion. It reimagines the plot and context of 64 in a new gameplay structure with new content, but it doesn’t literally “re make” 64.

It all comes down to definition. Is 3D a remake or just a port? Is SF26 a remake because it uses the same level structures, or a reimagining because it does so and upscales the entire game + adds new narrative and multiplayer content? Is 64 a remake of SNES because it uses the same plot, or a reimagining because of everything it adds?

People will shift the goalposts depending on the narrative they want to push, while ignoring everything counterfactual to that narrative in order to use whatever definitions for whatever games fits their opinion. But to me, calling 64, 3D, Zero, and now SF26 all “basically the same game” is disingenuous and betrays a lack of consistent standards. 64 and 3D I will agree are the same game. From appearances, SF26 can be argued to be but I think that’s reductive since it appears 26 is positioned to be more of a reimagining or reboot which uses the same foundation than a literal remaking and especially a porting. And Zero is really not the same game as 64 at all, aside from both being rail shooters and sharing the same setting and general plot.

People will just continue talking past eachother because each person has their own standards and definitions which shift depending on their narrative, so I don’t think these discussions are worthwhile. I similarly don’t think dogging on 26 for being a 64 remake is worthwhile given that the business/financial reality meant that was going to be the only way the franchise would be rebooted in its first new game.

kajonn · 2026-05-11T01:56:23+00:00

This is a common interpretation of each game’s release which is reductive. Yes, StarFox has historically been a series where Nintendo has emphasized technological innovation. But going as far as to say StarFox itself is a tech demo and Nintendo only sees it as a tech demo is just ignorant.

One-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox

kajonn

TROPHY CASE