Exciting times, huh.
There's a petition against this - linked in the Guardian Politics Live BTL comments.
But what good will it do.

Its text reads: “Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.”

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

I agree, in all seriousness, that it would have been more helpful if you had seen the scripture. That I merely referenced it, is not sufficient for the purpose. — Serving Zion

OK. So, back into the conversation for a little bit longer.

I shall take on board to at least generate a link in future, if it cannot be quoted. I understand the internal pressures that prevent one going to that effort when they have not a natural interest). — Serving Zion

You wrongly assumed I did not Google the reference. It takes no real effort, even if there is not a natural interest. Or perhaps this was a 'wrong assumption' which was intentionally placed and carefully played.

What 'internal pressures' did you think you understood as being a block to any effort ?

It is easy to find Isaiah 1:18 or any scriptural reference. Not so easy to see the relevance here.

Referencing scripture as a response - how helpful is that ?
— Amity
Bravo! (I shall take on board to at least generate a link in future, if it cannot be quoted. I understand the internal pressures that prevent one going to that effort when they have not a natural interest).

Sounds somewhat preachy.
— Amity
Ok, nevermind what that sounds like then. Make of it what you will :) — Serving Zion

You make wrong assumptions. Bravo !

Have done. Judgement made.
This reminds me of another preacher-type in another forum.
Still interesting sport for some...

Charlie Brown rhetorically: ' Who's to say what is right and wrong here?'
Lucy responds: 'I will'.
— Amity

That is precisely what I love about children! .. there really is nothing in their nature that stops them doing what is straightforward and (seemingly) right! — Serving Zion

Asking questions, being inquisitive, making judgements as to what is right - it is how we develop and grow.
However, it is not always straightforward - depending on who is asked and where the answers come from.

She had quoted the scripture and I said "that's not just a rhetorical question, you know" .. so I was saying that she was not handling the scripture as it is intended, by using a question that invites an answer as though it should not be "reasoned with" (Isaiah 1:18). — Serving Zion

Referencing scripture as a response - how helpful is that ? Sounds somewhat preachy.

I did have a particular point to make (that was quite a bit larger). — Serving Zion

So - are you saying you can't remember the point ?

But while I could remember the details of the conversation yesterday, today it has slipped my mind. I just trust that if it becomes necessary to explain, those details will come back to me, because it is certainly in there but there seems to be something blocking it :) — Serving Zion

While it is not necessary to explain, it might help to put your question in context.
What were the differences between you in 'handling the scripture as intended' ?

However, all of this is a distraction from the rest of my post.
What did you think of the content regarding 'the rhetorical question' ?
Did it lead to an improved understanding?

So I said this in passing on the weekend, while discussing scripture: "it's not just a rhetorical question, you know".

And today I'm still thinking about it.

I have believed that every question deserves an answer. So how can I be right if rhetorical questions demand no answer? — Serving Zion

Are you sure you said it 'in passing' ? It sounds like you had a point to make about a particular passage but didn't want to, or couldn't, spend too much time on it. Can you remember the piece ?

About 'rhetorical questions' - as usual, wiki offers up information.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.[Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message. — Wikipedia - Rhetorical question

So, it is not the case that this type of question is about getting a direct answer. However...

I am reminded of Daniel Dennet's comments on rhetorical questions in his book ' Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking', p55.

He suggests that whenever we see one, to try to answer it in our own way, creatively. You might just surprise the questioner who has used it for their own purposes.
It is a tactic he illustrates by use of a cartoon.

Charlie Brown rhetorically: ' Who's to say what is right and wrong here?'
Lucy responds: 'I will'.

The trick, I suppose, is being able to identify a rhetorical question and how it is being used.
Sometimes I ask a lot of questions - some might be taken as rhetorical and some are just put out there as they come to mind. Looking for an answer of sorts.

There is always the danger of being fearful to offer an answer - just incase the other person shrugs you off, questioning your intelligence at not recognising the obvious nature of it.

However, often it is used as a short cut - to cut off further exploration.
It is good to be aware of this tool and tactic. Look at each question carefully and decide whether it is worth answering. Why not ? What's to lose ?

Enjoying the discussion.

.

I appreciate your response, Fooloso4 - and that of others in this thread.
I will be taking time out for a bit. To follow up on this and other helpful comments.
Perhaps I'll circle back to Aristotle and his 'first mover'...

I am at a loss to see how "waffle" is any kind of correction or refinement - or contribution. What is waffling, where, how? — tim wood

You are right. You didn't get what you asked for. Tough. Perhaps someone else can be bothered.

'Waffling':

noun
1.BRITISH
lengthy but vague or trivial talk or writing.
"we've edited out some of the waffle"

synonyms:prattle, jabbering, verbiage, drivel, meaningless talk, nonsense, twaddle, gibberish, stuff and nonsense, bunkum, mumbo jumbo, padding, flannel, verbosity, prolixity; — Oxford online dictionary

 

The first part of your post. Verbose padding.

But I do observe that there is in your posts almost zero reference to any reading you're doing of Hegel's text. Anyone, everyone, else, but not Hegel. Why would that be? I assume you do read the paragraphs. — tim wood

You are right. I have never referenced any paragraphs, discussed any analysis with any other participants or raised any questions about the text. And I never, ever read the paragraphs.

[ Edit: to remove comments I regret making ]

Correction/refinement welcome. — tim wood

A lot of waffle.

For anyone interested in a more objective and substantive account, this is recommended:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

A modern phrase (first used before Hegel!) suffices here: "hermeneutic circle." More accurately, spiral. in simplest terms, as you go 'round and 'round with a thing, or idea, it makes the more sense. "Circle" referring variously to a "circle" of texts that inform (by successive recourse to) on the text in question. Or because the Greek root means translate/interpret, which in itself evokes a "taking counsel with," implying an other even it the other needed be found only in one's own critical awareness. — tim wood

Given that I have started a parallel thread to further explore issues, I will be discussing the question of the 'Hermeneutic Circle' there.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6430/hegel-is-not-a-philosopher-thoughts-

I hope thereby not to intrude on the focus and engagement required for the Preface text discussion.

@tim wood
@Fooloso4
@Wayfarer
@Valentinus
And any other interested parties...

I hope that using parts of quotes from this thread will not be objected to.
I will give due reference, acknowledgement and show context.
Have sent a PM to tim wood.

The Hermeneutic Circle. What is it ? Is it a useful concept ? I understand it as a way to understand a text by engaging with it. I know I can Google and I will. However, I am more interested in what others here might think of it, or understand by it. In particular, how it might help gain an understanding of Hegel.

In the Preface Reading Group thread, it was mentioned by @tim wood.

Here is the beginning of the quote:

A modern phrase (first used before Hegel!) suffices here: "hermeneutic circle." More accurately, spiral. in simplest terms, as you go 'round and 'round with a thing, or idea, it makes the more sense. "Circle" referring variously to a "circle" of texts that inform (by successive recourse to) on the text in question. — tim wood

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman/p12

The image of a circle is latched upon in a certain way. Is it a real engagement with the core text or is it a dance around the periphery ?

From the same article:

"Villy Søvndal, a former foreign minister, said the decision “confirms that Donald Trump is a narcissistic fool”.

The US president had been due to visit Denmark in early September but announced on Twitter late on Tuesday night that there was no longer any point in the visit. “Based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time,” Trump wrote. The White House later confirmed the visit had been called off.

Søvndal told the Danish newspaper Berlingske that Trump’s decision showed he was unaware of the basic rules of diplomacy. “If he had been a clown in a circus, you could probably say that there is considerable entertainment value. The problem is that he is the president of the most powerful nation in the world,” he said."

Trump is a narcissistic fool. At the very least.
Most people see that.

They've changed it.

The defence and security correspondent with Denmark’s Berlingske newspaper, Kristian Mouritzen, said the first reactions wwere of shock and amazement that the question of buying Greenland had been seriously raised. “In my long life I can never recall a friendly nation making a meeting dependent on a willingness to sell part of your territory. It’s like trying to buy Scotland. It’s out of the question.” — Shaun Walker

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/21/trump-state-visit-cancellation-over-greenland-shocks-danes

'Like trying to buy Scotland'.
He's already got a chunk of it :worry:

You asked what type of knowledge allows us to differentiate between future and past.
Most people would say 'common sense' and experience.
— Amity

In the op I explained why we cannot refer to empirical knowledge to justify the claim of a difference between past and future. Perhaps it's "common sense", but what's that? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I noted that. And clearly disagree.
Common sense means never having to look up Wikipedia.
But here it is anyway, for those who really don't know :roll:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Reuters sounding like The Onion? Jesus. — Michael

Enough to make you cry ?

Top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Fox News Sunday that the White House is looking into the possibility of buying Greenland, despite the fact that Greenland’s government recently confirmed that the island was “not for sale.” What do you think?

“Since when does the U.S. government pay for the land it takes?”

PETER WRIGHT • MONOTREME EXPERT

“If Greenland isn’t going to exploit that land to the fullest, then they don’t deserve it.”

ROSALIND KEMP • US POSTAL WORKER

“A little retail therapy is just what this nation needs to get its groove back.”

CRAIG MCPHERSON • PROSTHETIC POLISHER

https://www.theonion.com/trump-advisor-confirms-administration-looking-into-buyi-1837379687

To make everything nice for the people of Greenland, perhaps the US ought to give every citizen of Greenland two million dollars (that's just a puny 114 billion $) and free tickets to Disneyland Galaxy's End (I hear it hasn't been such a success) as a gesture of welcome.

Oh how historic it would be! And everybody would be OK with it! — ssu

Bigly.

What's new ?

Shock and Disbelief

Danes have expressed shock and disbelief over Donald Trump’s cancellation of a state visit to Denmark after its prime minister rebuffed his interest in purchasing Greenland.

The US president’s proposal at first elicited incredulity and humour from politicians in Denmark, a Nato ally, with the former premier Lars Løkke Rasmussen saying: “It must be an April Fool’s Day joke.”

 Q&AWhy might Donald Trump want to buy Greenland? Show

But the mood turned to shock when Trump called off the 2-3 September visit after the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, called his idea of the US buying Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, absurd.

“Total chaos with @realDonaldTrump and cancellation of state visit to Denmark. It has gone from a big opportunity for strengthened dialogue between allies to a diplomatic crisis,” the former foreign minister Kristian Jensen, a member of the opposition Liberal party, said on Twitter.

“Everyone should know Greenland is not for sale,” Jensen said of the world’s largest island, which has considerable mineral wealth and a US military presence at the Thule airbase under a US-Danish treaty dating to 1951. — Reuters

.double post.

And there's more...sense of fatalism.

Just as in 1914, the Brexit buildup is making calamity feel inevitable.

Even with a century of hindsight it is impossible to discern a point of no return, a junction at which all future paths, by whatever gradient or circuitous route, converged on disaster. If history doesn’t afford that view, how are we to know in real time when such a moment is close, or has been passed?...

...We are transfixed by frenzy on the stage before us: manoeuvres in anticipation of a no-confidence vote. We suppose that all possible routes are still open. Pro-Europeans must hope that there is a way back, that it is not a just a choice of gradient on the downward slide. Yet I sense fatalism creeping into formerly strident anti-Brexit voices. I glimpse shudders of dread that events are being driven not by the MPs who will vote in the coming weeks but by a critical mass of cowardice, ignorance and ideological prejudice that was reached months ago, maybe years.

The past is harrying the present. — Rafael Behr

I find the paragraphs taken severally difficult to get through. Often in trying to follow the path I find no path. I.e., where I look for meaning I have to provide it - and remember that as mine it's provisional — tim wood

Of course, the paragraphs are difficult to get through to find the meaning. As a group, we all struggle with this to varying degrees. Some spend more time than others, some fall away; it's all a learning process.
Fascinating to be a part of.The dynamics and dialogue intriguing in themselves.

As a leader of a discussion, it is wise and important to acknowledge a lack of understanding and not to plough on regardless, without even commenting on a particular paragraph *.
Silence can mean so many things. It can give the impression of not caring and that is far from the truth.
It is good to know where we stand, even if the ground is shaky, especially when the ground is shaky.

All our understanding is provisional. Our thoughts are not written in stone. They are active and adapting.
Communication is all. Thanks for listening and sharing.

*

If something in a view you're examining is unclear to you, don't gloss it over. Call attention to the unclarity. Suggest several different ways of understanding the view. Explain why it's not clear which of these interpretations is correct. — Jim Pryor

I am guilty of glossing over that which I don't understand or dismissing fancy gobbledegook.
However, sometimes I try to gain clarification by asking questions of other posters. Sometimes I am fortunate enough to get an understandable reply. Other times, the reply is that ambiguous silence.

However, we cannot really claim to experience the future, and though we say we've experienced the past, it is not as the past that we've experienced it. So the question is what type of knowledge allows us to say that there is a difference between future and past, or is there really no difference between them and what appears as extremely self-evident is just a deep delusion? — Metaphysician Undercover

There seems to be past - present - future, as memory, sensation, and imagination. I suppose you privilege the present as all-encompassing, in that memory and imagined futures are also 'sensed' as 'present'
— unenlightened

Yes, I actually do privilege the present. That's because without the present, as the thing which separates or divides the future from the past, there could be no future or past. Also, I tend to think that it is impossible that the present could be a dimensionless dividing point, or else we couldn't exist in the present (as we are dimensional). So I believe that the present actually contains within it, some of the past, and some of the future, and this is why we have both memories and anticipations at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You asked what type of knowledge allows us to differentiate between future and past.
Most people would say 'common sense' and experience. The present is seen as an immediate now, today, even though it changes and becomes the past super fast. When did you last take a breath, when is your next one. What did you have for breakfast? A future event which was anticipated - lunch - just as quickly is upon us. We can think about both past and future in the present moment.
So, yes, it is a sensible belief that the present contains memories and anticipation, expectation and preparation.

A practical sense of this is found in this article by Rafael Behr about Brexit.

Just as in 1914, the Brexit buildup is making calamity feel inevitable.

Even with a century of hindsight it is impossible to discern a point of no return, a junction at which all future paths, by whatever gradient or circuitous route, converged on disaster. If history doesn’t afford that view, how are we to know in real time when such a moment is close, or has been passed?...

...We are transfixed by frenzy on the stage before us: manoeuvres in anticipation of a no-confidence vote. We suppose that all possible routes are still open. Pro-Europeans must hope that there is a way back, that it is not a just a choice of gradient on the downward slide. Yet I sense fatalism creeping into formerly strident anti-Brexit voices. I glimpse shudders of dread that events are being driven not by the MPs who will vote in the coming weeks but by a critical mass of cowardice, ignorance and ideological prejudice that was reached months ago, maybe years.

The past is harrying the present.
— Rafael Behr

Just like with other giants of philosophy, we tend to forget their main points and likely judge them by today's standards.

Perhaps it's fitting here to say that Hegel himself said: every philosophy... belongs to its own time and is caught in that time's restriction. — ssu

I don't think that the main points of giants of philosophy would be forgotten so easily. Especially if they are made clear and understandable. If not by them, then by others.
Yes. It is difficult to appreciate that these old ideas were new at the time. We take so much for granted with our current knowledge and sometimes forget the continued relevance of ideas and values made implicit or explicit in previous times.

Here are two perspectives worth considering, I think.

As Hegel was the first to know, ‘every philosophy ... belongs to its own time and is caught in that time’s restriction’. But that raises a question: how can a philosophical outlook stay alive after its ‘time’ has passed? The answer to this question takes us beyond philosophical argumentation to a deeper penetration of ‘its own time’ and ours. That is why the key to what is alive in Hegel’s thought lies in Marx’s critique of it. — Cyril Smith

Hegel’s own pithy account of the nature of philosophy given in the Preface to his Elements of the Philosophy of Right captures a characteristic tension in his philosophical approach and, in particular, in his approach to the nature and limits of human cognition. “Philosophy”, he says there, “is its own time comprehended in thoughts” (PR: 21).

On the one hand we can clearly see in the phrase “its own time” the suggestion of an historical or cultural conditionedness and variability which applies even to the highest form of human cognition, philosophy itself. The contents of philosophical knowledge, we might suspect, will come from the historically changing contents of its cultural context. On the other, there is the hint of such contents being raised to some higher level, presumably higher than other levels of cognitive functioning such as those based in everyday perceptual experience, for example, or those characteristic of other areas of culture such as art and religion. This higher level takes the form of conceptually articulated thought, a type of cognition commonly taken as capable of having purportedly eternal contents (think of Plato and Frege, for example). In line with such a conception, Hegel sometimes referred to the task of philosophy as that of recognising the concept (Der Begriff) in the mere representations (Vorstellungen) of everyday life.
— Paul Redding

What we have is a set of texts. In real time right now. Do they have substantial value; are they worth the candle? Or mainly accidental aphoristic value? Or a trip to nowhere?

Commentary and secondary literature on Hegel - or any topic - must be viewed with some suspicion. It can certainly aid reading primary material, as a map can assist a hike. Inevitably though it skews it or colours it - and in some cases be plain wrong about it. — tim wood

Yes. There is a set of texts available to read, if we so wish and have the time.
Failing that there is a most useful and substantive SEP article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

The pros and cons of using secondary literature have been discussed elsewhere. In other group discussions. It almost always comes up with some suggestion, or 'suspicion' that it is 'cheating' your own reading of the original text. I argue that if one is using them effectively and with a critical eye, then the benefits can outweigh any potential swaying. Indeed, reading different perspectives might counteract one's own bias or pre-judging.

Unfortunately, in a group reading it doesn't work that way. — tim wood

Group readings in a philosophy forum are notoriously difficult. There are different reasons for this.

Yes. I think so. However, I have only quickly scanned the material.
Thanks again.

I'll proceed paragraph-by-paragraph. — tim wood

This is a difficult read. I intend to proceed through it paragraph-by-paragraph, — tim wood

Copying and pasting.
Soon the whole Preface will be covered.
The mountain top reached.
Out of breath and without oxygen.
Dead bodies are left on the mountain.
Where is the joy ?
Of reading...

So I imagine that if Hegel sought to distinguish himself from being a ‘mere’ philosopher, he might have had something like the ideal of ‘the sage’ in mind. In fact, Kant has been referred to as ‘the sage of Konigsburg’, and I’m more inclined to grant him the distinction. ;-) — Wayfarer

I am not sure that Hegel did seek to distinguish himself as such.
Did he ?
But perhaps his thoughts were 'divinely inspired' ? As well as being a 'book learner'...

Likewise Islam and Hinduism distinguish ‘philosophers’ from ‘sages’ (the latter being said to be divinely inspired, the former to be mere ‘book learners’. — Wayfarer

That's what we were discussing in the other thread. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I know.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman/p11

I thought it worth pursuing outwith the reading of the Preface. To be able to explore this in greater depth.
Perhaps I was wrong.

these terms are very general and vague, they can be interpreted in so many different ways that it's not a very meaningful observation until some particular principles are compared. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. I think it would require some in-depth reading of Aristotle and his 'first mover'.
Interpretive difficulties abound, no doubt...

Currently in the Preface thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman/p12

@tim wood
"Hegel is either a dinosaur, interesting but in-himself a quaint piece of history of no direct interest, or, even today the bearer of truths timeless in-themselves, that ought to be known."

I consider your question of dinosaur versus current player the one that is most interesting to me and shapes the tenor of many reactions to Hegel's text.
But I will respond more thoughtfully after a little bit. — Valentinus

'Dinosaur v current player'.
I look forward to further clarification.
Clearly, there are many different views and interpretations.
All of them potentially relevant to one's own developing understanding.That is one of the reasons I started a new thread; to give room for that exploration and to prevent straying too far off the Preface.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6430/hegel-is-not-a-philosopher-thoughts-

I understood Tim's aim was to focus on the text alone and explicate each paragraph *
I find this continual comparative analysis of Hegel v Kant useful up to a point. However, it seems to be taking over the objective analysis of the Preface.
I miss @Fooloso4 comments on each paragraph. Perhaps he has lost interest...

*

To understand any book or text requires first that it be read - and understood. That's the task of this thread, and that is the only task of this thread! Opinions and arguments are not welcome! Exception: given a reading, if someone can add light or improve on - or correct - the explication given, then they're very welcome. Or if anyone wants to add their own parallel "reading," also welcome.

With luck, 50-odd pages, maybe the thing can be done in under 50 - 100 posts! — tim wood

At this point a decision to be made. Hegel is either a dinosaur, interesting but in-himself a quaint piece of history of no direct interest, or, even today the bearer of truths timeless in-themselves, that ought to be known — tim wood

Why 'at this point'?
Why an either/or decision ?
Why the extreme positions ?

You might need to make that decision. I don't.

However, you raise an interesting question which I have taken the liberty of including in a parallel thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6430/hegel-is-not-a-philosopher-thoughts-

Agreed. Nevertheless, it can lead to other questions...
Isn't that what happens here in the forum. That baited hook in the title of a thread...

What is it about them that makes them 'good philosophers' - from your point of view ?
And why wouldn't you have Hegel amongst them ?
— Amity

For one, they're what I consider good writers. Clear, coherent, there's a good logical flow to their writing and argumentation most of the time. — Terrapin Station

And that would answer my second question.
I share your appreciation of good, clear writing. But there is something of a challenge in trying to work out the meaning of the more obscure.
Hence my efforts to keep up in the Preface thread, murderous as it is...
I am trying to be objective and apply that well-known Principle of Charity. It ain't easy.
I have little patience.
I was re-energised and remotivated by the introduction of Goethe into the discussion by @WerMaat who unfortunately has gone AWOL.
Goethe is a far easier read and I have become interested in the apparent mystical aspect of German idealism linked with literature. I can't believe I just wrote that :chin:
Again, understandably, not to everyone's taste or philosophical leanings.

Hegel: a Mystic Man ?

Do you agree with @Wayfarer in his comment:
"I think it is possible to identify aspects the Hegelian 'absolute' with both the 'first mover' of Aristotle, and also with the One of neo-platonism (feasibly a kind of 'world soul')."

“....It became the fitting starting-point for the still grosser nonsense of the clumsy and stupid Hegel....”, (Schopenhauer, WWR2, Appendix, p16, 2nd ed., 1844)

.....which tends to support the possibility that at least one of his peers didn’t deny Hegel being a philosopher, albeit a thoroughly crappy one. ‘Course, that may not be quite fair play, because ol’ Arthur attacked everybody of German idealist descent, to some degree or another, even its king. — Mww

Back to Schopenhauer.

The personal animosity is clear but how far apart were they in their thoughts about introspection and the importance of self-consciousness ? I don't know. Does it all come down to 'Know Thyself'...

Something @Wayfarer brought to my attention in the Preface thread, an extract from the SEP entry on Schopenhauer:

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

Among the most frequently-identified principles that are introspectively brought forth — and one that was the standard for German Idealist philosophers such as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel who were philosophizing within the Cartesian tradition — is the principle of self-consciousness. With the belief that acts of self-consciousness exemplify a self-creative process akin to divine creation, and developing a logic that reflects the structure of self-consciousness, namely, the dialectical logic of position, opposition and reconciliation (sometimes described as the logic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis), the German Idealists maintained that dialectical logic mirrors the structure not only of human productions, both individual and social, but the structure of reality as a whole, conceived of as a thinking substance or conceptually-structured-and-constituted entity. — SEP article on Schopenhauer

Prego :cool:

I wasn't saying that it was difficult, although it was — T Clark

Yes, I know. My lingua-in-maxillam response was meant for SophistiCat who was clearly impressed. Quite rightly so.

My point was that it was an unnatural way for me to read so my impression of Hugo's writing is suspect. — T Clark

Understood. High School Foreign Assignments. Unnatural. Yep.

But, but...lift doors can still look or function like a wall, when closed.
There needs to be a button, a knob or a key to open any such 'wall'.

the statement is extremely deep because it shares the same fabric/common theme as philosophical questions such as 'what is the meaning of life?'; the idea of 'purpose'... — BeanutPutter

How so ?

Fuck, fuck, fuckety, fuck. Bugger. We are completely and utterly fucked :sad: :fear: :groan:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/18/mr-corbyn-wants-a-general-election-but-is-his-party-ready-to-fight-one

What are the chances of Miller's hope that:

'MPs of all parties must summon the courage to hold an overweening executive to account and do what is right in the name of the people they are elected to represent.'

Lookee here:

Stopping no deal

1. Corbyn-led temporary government
Jeremy Corbyn has offered to lead a temporary government tasked with requesting a delay to Brexit from the EU, before triggering an election.
Likelihood: one in five

2. Government of national unity
Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, has said Corbyn cannot command enough support to lead a temporary government. She has instead suggested a temporary government of national unity, led by a more neutral figure such as Labour’s Harriet Harman or veteran Tory Ken Clarke.
Likelihood: two in five

3. New laws blocking no deal
MPs such as Dominic Grieve, Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles and Yvette Cooper have been part of efforts to pass new legislation that orders the prime minister to request a Brexit delay to avoid no deal.
Likelihood: three in five

4. A Brexit deal is agreed
Some MPs are still holding out hope that Boris Johnson will offer them a vote on a Brexit deal based on the agreement put forward by Theresa May. For it to pass, Labour MPs opposed to a second referendum, such as Lisa Nandy, would have to back it.
Likelihood: two in five — Michael Savage

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/17/labour-tory-mps-unite-plot-radical-law-stop-no-deal-brexit

The current state of affairs ? What is at stake ?
Gina Miller's take:

'Success in a general election would allow the prime minister to experiment with the most extreme rightwing ideology'.

Unsaid in the letter, but streaming through it like shafts of light through a broken roof, Johnson’s plan of action – doubtless guided by the arch-Brexiter svengali Dominic Cummings – is clearly to call an election and dissolve parliament as soon as the beginning of next month, with polling at some point after the existing Brexit day of 31 October.

He is gambling everything on Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity and a public which, at that point, will have yet to experience the full force of no-deal economic headwinds. He may even hold a pre-Brexit budget to lull the public into a false sense of security, bribing them with their own money, through a splurge of new spending promises and tax cuts funded by an increase in the national debt...

...Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, parliament is automatically dissolved 25 days before an election, but it can be done sooner. Such an election lock would close the doors of parliament and legally push the UK over the EU exit date. So, while MPs debate a vote of no confidence and Corbyn attempts to become leader of a government of national unity, Johnson could dramatically pull the rug from underneath their feet...

...What a travesty it is that the high priests of Leave in 2016, who insisted to all of us that Brexit would mean a return to parliamentary sovereignty, are undermining and circumventing parliamentary sovereignty in order to deliver their hard Brexit.

All now depends on that same parliamentary sovereignty: MPs of all parties must summon the courage to hold an overweening executive to account and do what is right in the name of the people they are elected to represent.

— Gina Miller

Further notes from Rockmore:
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7d5nb4r8;brand=ucpress

Analysis (Analysieren) of an idea into its constituent elements, through the understanding (Verstand ), as distinguished from reason, will not yield knowledge. Kant's critical philosophy features categories, or pure concepts of the understanding, that "produce," or "construct," the objects of experience by unifying the contents of sensory experience. For Hegel, on the contrary, the understanding does not unify but rather separates. He refers to "the activity of separation of theUnderstanding, the most astonishing and mightiest of powers, or rather the absolute power" (§32, 18). The understanding's capacity to introduce distinctions, to separate what was whole, or the power of the negative that causes death, is a phase of the cognitive process. In a further phase, mere individuality is transformed into universality. In this way, thoughts, or pure essences, are brought together in an "organic whole" (§34, 20). — Tom Rockmore