Hegel

isn't Badiou even more turboautistic than Hegel with his math stuff?

Ahem

Attached: 1527491086147.png (900x750, 571K)

I appreciate this. Can you elaborate on the Marxist perspective? Does it interfere at all with the material?

in that book there is an essay by a chinese scholar which is what matters to the issue of understanding Hegel. like you said if you want to go hyper-autistic and enter the differences between how maoists conceive dialectics you can read the rest

the book is a series of commentaries from Badiou and other french maoists 68ers on a principal piece which is an essay by a chinese scholar on Hegel

see

Cringed but redpilled

why do you think being an undergrad student makes you sufficiently qualified to assess this material? if that's your opinion, fine, but i find it funny that you state that you're a "logic major" and that somehow gives you any credibility. if you were a phd with celebrated articles published, then that would be something worth citing your credentials over

Apply yourself!

vocaroo.com/i/s0DBKcPYMJTK

10/10 based and cringepilled

Okay, so something struck me last night. As we all know, if you can't condense your thoughts down to a five word sentence, you don't really understand what you're trying to say. Now, two great examples of thinkers not knowing their own thoughts are Homer (specifically in the Catalog of Ships aka. Iliad) and Hegel in PoS.
Both of these works and their ideas stretch far beyond the acceptable limit of five words to express their ideas. How hard is it to say, "there were many ships," and "everything is rational" respectively? Now, seeing as I understand these people better than themselves, I am offering this refinement or, more aptly, a synthesis of their thoughts.
If we accept the Catalog of Ships > 5 words and Phenomenology of the Spirit > 5 words, then it would seem, for all intents and purposes, the Catalog of Ships = Phenomenology of the Spirit, at least in regard to being incoherent ramblings.
With this, we can safely combine these works and create a new name; "Catalog of Spirit," "Phenomenology of (the) Ships," "Phenomenology of Catalogs," or "Catalog of Phenomenology."
However, seeing the natural equality in these works, the title "Phenomenology of Phenomenology," or "Catalog of (the) Catalogs" are also valid.
And from this understanding we should see that the synthesis between, "there were many ships" and "everything is rational," yields either "there was everything" or "every ship is rational." But seeing as all these are all saying the same thing, it is just as well to say, "everything is ships."
So, what you should get from this is that if you write something you don't understand down and pass it off as an intelligible point, someone much smarter than you after your death will make you look like a fool.

Good day.

hegel is an annoying pseud

The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

It’s obviously intended to be ironic

Hegel reminds me of those structures which make complete sense from one vantage point, and no sense from any other, but with a slight twist: Hegel makes sense from every vantage point only after one has observed from every vantage point.

Based and redpilled

The Absolute is Absolute as far as it is at last recognized as such, therefore, it is as far as it is both substance & subject. The culmination of the absolute culminates in its culmination within its culmination. And this culmination culminates itself, and, being absolute, the being of all that has, is, and will culminate. Therefore, truth is as it is object, Spirit as it is it’s knowing, Science as it is truth of its-self, that is Spirit.

The knower who sees the object as is, as it is, sees the truth. The activity of Spirit as knowing itself as knowing and knower. It is Spirit insofar as it recognizes itself as itself, the spirit of knowing is it self knowing spirit.

The Science of Spirit as the identification of itself as it is truly. The truth of its own truth as truth. The culmination culminating itself for itself to itself by itself. It begins itself for its self to its self as Absolute. It begins as far as its end has culminated its own process, therefore it is not infinite, not-nothing, but Absolute.

Attached: 5BECCF6C-71C5-4466-A6BC-31CFD70B91BC.jpg (500x500, 16K)

AHEM

Attached: KierkegaardS.jpg (780x520, 102K)

you better pray for your internet ass that he wasn't being ironic too

>pray for your internet ass
I pray for your actual ass that you aren’t nearly as retarded as you sound

The Absolute is absolute as far as it is at last recognized as such, therefore, it is as far as it is both substance & subject. The culmination of the absolute culminates in its culmination within its culmination. And this culmination culminates itself, and, being absolute, the being of all that has, is, and will culminate. Therefore, truth is as it is object, Spirit as it is it’s knowing, Science as it is truth of its-self, that is Spirit.

The knower who sees the object as is, as it is, sees the truth. The activity of Spirit as knowing itself as knowing and knower. It is Spirit insofar as it recognizes itself as itself, the spirit of knowing is it self knowing spirit.

The Science of Spirit as the identification of itself as it is truly. The truth of its own truth as truth. The culmination culminating itself for itself to itself by itself. It begins itself for its self to its self as Absolute. It begins as far as its end has culminated its own process, therefore it is not infinite, not-nothing, but Absolute.

Attached: 275C8156-17BB-497E-9D17-F636527CEC25.gif (500x500, 174K)

Actually the antithesis comes first. You see the thesis is not the thesis until out of itself contradictictions arise. Sublating these contradictions, taking the good and shedding the bad, results not in something entirely new, but a return to itself as more itself than it was before. Hegels dialectics is a process of self identity, which is why I love it. Also he NEVER used the terms thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. As far as I understand Hegel the mediation, reflection, is the movement or activity of reason, therefore the Notion is both it’s begining and end, the result was always thee to begin with, and the end is an establishing of the beginning as begining. It’s not enough to say A=A, or all is one, for the one, if it be all, must show itself in all as all and one, which is how Hegel establishes his reflexive subject, Conciousness, active, is both at one substance and subject. Conciousness of itself and for itself.

>no pictures of him
A spook

this

Who are you user? I unironically love you. Does someone have a compilation of this shit?

The Father of All Pseudothinkers

Hegel writes jargon that is meaningless outside of a chic Left Bank Parisian cafe or the humanities department of some university extremely well insulated from the real world. I suggest this passage from the German 'philosopher' (this passage detected, translated, and reviled by Karl Popper):

>Sound is the change in the specific condition of segregation of the material parts, and in the negation of this condition; merely an abstract or an ideal ideality, as it were, of that specification. But this change, accordingly, is itself immediately the negation of the material specific subsistence; which is, therefore, real ideality of specific gravity and cohesion, i.e.--heat. The heating up of the sounding bodies, just as of beaten and or rubbed ones, is the appearance of heat, originating conceptually together with sound.

. . . . Now consider that Hegelian thinking is generally linked to a 'scientific' approach to history; it has produced such results as Marxist regimes and even a branch called 'neo-Hegelian' thinking. These 'thinkers' should be given an undergraduate-level class on statistical sampling theory prior to their release into the open world."

Attached: 1560076446112.jpg (1199x745, 171K)

>anglos can't into metaphysics

ahahahaha

Hegel is a good pleb and anglo filter

>reads Heidegger once

Weird man. I try to read one SEoP entry a day, I've been doing this for about 6 months. I read that one yesterday.

identity, negation, sublation

Hegel took to task to write, as explicable as possible, the truth he found in the mystical texts. The mystical texts use allegory and deception on purpose, because deciphering is also part of the ultimate truth. But Hegel nevertheless wanted to make it a science, “not jut a love for knowledge, but actual knowledge”. If you have a hard time reading Hegel, remember, Hegel is trying to write as explicable as possible the truths of the metaphysical texts as he can. It’s not going to be a stroll through your neighborhood park

Dont be a bitch. user is a brainlet.

>look at up on it
Ah, the refreshing clarifying power of the analytic school...

PLEASE GOD provide one or two WOULD IT BE SO HARD TO DO TWO examples of his process and how it compares to the parables of Christ which, yes, represent something else, but are in no way to be compared with THE SPIRITUAL ABSOLUTE OF THE I NEGATING THE CONSCIOUS DIALECTIC without anyone making that claim deserving to be sent themselves to a cross.

You better hope to God that I'm not only pretending to be retarded

Hegel describes the I-swallowing of field of dead/objective immortality which determines the consequential order of events as Whitehead knows it, you are correct , Hegel's thought is an Ouroboros that eats Kierkegaard Internalities, or rather, it is that which can only be produced in their sublation, etc. hegel's spirit is the objective immortality of God, embodied in the evolving universe: if only you knew how bad things really are

Attached: ww6.jpg (668x712, 129K)

Mein Gott this is obscene.

Attached: zizek.png (440x440, 322K)

Gimme a sec I’m supersetting rn

you mean how good things really are

Attached: 208156A3-F9C5-482E-8081-3D8FC3E3BB35.jpg (500x700, 152K)

He doesn’t get the infinite

>Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
>When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
>Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
>And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

He foretells a question for no reason but to answer it. If they now know the answer then why would they ask it? The foretelling is at odds with the answer. A contradiction hidden in plain sight.

Attached: 1534604455351.jpg (400x609, 70K)

The infinite is a description of the metamorphosis of forms to perception, not of the eternal process which is one and absolute in itself and for itself

>warosu.org/lit/thread/S13056100#p13074177

Indeed. Another example being Jesus, in Incarnation vs. Docetism:

"Canon": Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

"Heresy": He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.

That original sin and Jesus' atonement are not in the Gospels is common enough knowledge, BUT note how the passages that ostensibly confirm this doctrine actually rebuke it. That he might take his life again makes "sacrifice" null, that the Father loves HIM for doing it, not the "sinners", that he does not acquiesce to death, but renounces his life proactively. This is Docetism, not only ironically, but more radical than per "Gnosticism". In being fully man, but essentially making light of human life, enough that he seems to trivialize it by liking it to a Docetic "apparition", he is actually coinciding Incarnation and Docetism, and consecrating man AS SUCH. That this is not Kenomic, but in fact most magnanimous is as startling as how it relates to sin, whereto the old things pass etc. It makes the "heretical" passage sound like menopausal finger-wagging. The Phenomenology of Spirit and Plato's Parmenides both weep with joy.

Choose your words wisely.

Attached: wildberger.jpg (900x900, 122K)

Yeah, he didn’t get spinoza’s math, so he made up some bs like that.

I would go so far as to say that the infinite, in itself, is nothing but a description of a process, a process that like quoted about sound. The infinite is but a trail of spirits footprints

Is it just a trail if we can think of the concept of something "approaching infinity", which has concrete mathematical implications? How can we say we are approaching or moving toward something if that thing is a trail left behind?

This is the best post I've seen in quite some time.

something happens, and then uhh, a different thing happens, and then uhh something in between them happens, then uhh somthing different then that thing happens, and so on

history has ended with this post.

You are forever approaching Hegel, just read it already

The OG Nick Land, just stringing together word salad.

Big boy philosophy

>As we all know, if you can't condense your thoughts down to a five word sentence, you don't really understand what you're trying to say.
ironic

this?stairisa.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/9780980819762-rational_kernal_of_the_hegelian_dialectic_v2.pdf

if i read page 21-47 and I will understand hegel?

yikes

The only bad thing to happen to it is the disgusting materialist interpretation of Marx

Attached: 2F751581-41AF-4CAE-A3EC-A0783FBB8025.jpg (620x465, 60K)

Incessantly asks for the whole jug but doesn't drink a drop. Cowards.