I don't see fundamentally new happening in this paragraph. Actually, Hegel is being quite patient with us, isn't he? — WerMaat

Well, there is nothing new here in the sense that I still don't get it no matter how often he may repeat himself. This:

The true is the whole. However, the whole is only the essence completing itself through its own development. This much must be said of the absolute: It is essentially a result, and only at the end is it what it is in truth. — Hegel

I have read this and similar phrases over and over. It seems to be the nub of the matter.
I am tempted to throw my arms in the air and shout 'So what !?' :meh:

I am returning to para 17, Preface.
I didn't quite catch the importance of this on my first skim through.
Appreciate Fooloso4's thought here:

In the middle of these distinctions there is what seems to be a non-sequitur:

"However much taking God to be the one substance shocked the age in which this was expressed, still that was in part because of an instinctive awareness that in such a view self-consciousness only perishes and is not preserved."

I take this is a direct reference to Spinoza’s God. Hegel thinks it shocked the age not because, as is commonly assumed, threatening the status of God as distinct and separate, but because it threatens the status of man as distinct in his self-consciousness. It is not a non-sequitur because this is precisely what is at issue - the relationship between God, man, thinking, and the whole. — Fooloso4

Thanks for spelling out what is at issue.: 'The relationship between God, man, thinking, and the whole' Although still not sure what kind of God Hegel is speaking of. Nor what the 'whole' is in practical terms *. Are we supposed to be at One with each other ?

I introduced Spinoza because of what Hegel goes on to say about God as the one substance. Why does he introduce this here, at this point? — Fooloso4

it means that there is only one substance and that it is not derived from or dependent on anything else. — Fooloso4

So, God is a substance ? Is Hegel a pantheist ? Rockford seems to suggest so:

The allusions to God as one substance (§17, 10) refer to the controversy about Spinoza, after G. H. Lessing's death, in correspondence between Jacobi and Moses Mendelssohn. This correspondence, published in 1785, led to a famous "struggle over pantheism" (Pantheismusstreit ). Eventually, Kant, J. W. Goethe, J. G. von Herder, J. C. Lavater, and others became involved. In the Encyclopedia, recalling Lessing's famous remark that Spinoza was treated like a dead dog, Hegel later comments that the treatment of speculative philosophy is scarcely better. His sympathy for Spinozism is apparent in his claim, redolent of pantheism, that "the living Substance is being which is in truth subject" (§18, 10).

Hegel further stresses his idea of the true as substance and as subject.
The object of knowledge is, like a subject, active in that it develops within consciousness.

For "the living substance is being which is in truth Subject, or, what is the same, is in truth actual only in so far as it is the movement of positing itself, or is the mediation of its  self -othering with itself" (§18, 10).
He echoes a passage in the Diffirenzschrift in comparing the process through which the object changes as we seek to know it to a "circle that presupposes its end as its goal, at its beginning, and is only actual through the carrying out and its end" (§18, 10*).
— Tom Rockmore

What does this mean ? Is God the Subject, the living Substance - and we are the object (or small subject ) endeavouring to become at one with the Subject ? Do we reject our self so as to move on, to process and progress?

Self-positing is negative in that it is a rejection of what it is in order to become what it will be. — Fooloso4

Could you expand on this, please. I am still not entirely sure what 'self-positing' means?

The movement is within the subject, a turning from within itself away from and back to itself. In its otherness it is still its sameness. That is, it is never wholly other.

The true is not an original unity as such, or, not an immediate unity as such. It is the coming-to-be of itself, the circle that presupposes its end as its goal and has its end for its beginning, and which is actual only through this accomplishment and its end.

The subject here is not the individual or only the individual but mankind. — Fooloso4

Do you mean the subject or the object which changes, developing through increased awareness ?
The relationship between our particular selves > the world > reaching some whole Truth via the process of reason or thought ?
Are we meant to get tied in knots ?

* from Rockford on 'the whole':

Now returning to his view of substance as subject, he draws the consequence in writing that "the True is the whole" (§20, 11); what we seek to know, which he calls the absolute, can only be known when it is fully developed, as a result. For it is in the result, in which its essence (Wesen ) is effectively realized, or actual, that it has become and can be known. The result follows from a process. — Tom Rockford

Well, what is the reverse of a condition made only possible through development? — Valentinus

The term or idea of 'development' usually has positive connotations but not always.
What do you mean by it ?
What 'condition' are you talking about ?
What is the point of the question?

I think Rockmore speaks too generally when he says: "The relation of inequality remains, although its terms reverse themselves". The master's dependency on the servant develops over time and when the relationship is superseded by a new one. — Valentinus

Perhaps you are right.
However, I read it that the inequality remains when the roles are reversed.
Yes, the relationship develops over time. Rockmore says the relationship evolves.

In any case, I think it probably time I backtracked to para18 of the Preface !
Thanks for your thoughts.

Hegel relates the negation of person-hood as happens between Master and Slave as part of the process of becoming aware of the "other." — Valentinus

'The process of becoming aware of the other' seems central to Hegel's theory.
We only become self-aware or self-conscious via our relationships to others.

In the Pinkard translation, it can be found in Section B, Self Consciousness, starting with Chapter A, titled: Self-Sufficiency and Non-Self-Sufficiency of Self-Consciousness;Mastery and Servitude.

The paragraphs 179 to 181 specifically involve "sublating" the other. — Valentinus

Thanks. I have taken note of the pdf page - starts p155, para 178. Jotted down p160 para 190 where I think the discussion starts in earnest. ( but I could be wrong ! )

I'm currently reading Tom Rockmore's 'Concept - An Introduction to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit' - (again, the search function is proving useful ).
Didn't realise that this passage was so famous, particularly from the Marxist perspective.
Conscious individuals in their conflicting interrelationships the basis for the master-slave relationship.

...Hegel further sees that self-awareness is not all or nothing but a question of degree. Like Rousseau, he understands social life as an ongoing struggle for recognition that can have vastly different outcomes. Both his exposition of the master-slave relation in the first section and his further exposition of free self-consciousness in the second section concern the social constitution of the cognitive subject...

...The German terms in the title of the passage suggest a distinction between those who are self-sufficient, hence independent, and those who are not. Hegel's surprising point is that in inherently unstable relations of social inequality, the master is not self-sufficient but dependent on the slave. When such a relationship has finished evolving, the unexpected result is that the slave is the  master  of the  master  and the  master  is the slave of the slave. The relation of inequality remains, although its terms reverse themselves.

Hegel's reputation as a social liberal is justified. His liberalism is not restricted merely to his early period. He composed this passage against the backdrop of the still recent French Revolution. It is at least arguable that what is still the greatest political upheaval of modern times resulted from the emergence of social awareness. For the change in our way of looking at ourselves and our world leads to their transformation.
— Tom Rockmore

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

Hegel relates the negation of person-hood as happens between Master and Slave as part of the process of becoming aware of the "other." Reason, with a capital R, is not possible without lots of awful experience. — Valentinus

Thanks. I would be grateful if you could provide a reference for this.

The substance of my point is that he separates thinking from the world. In contrast to Kant who wants to figure out how we know about the world (in a scientific sense), Hegel just seems to find it in his perception. — tim wood

Or another way, with Kant, on land, your feet are always on ground. At sea with Hegel, floating, or if in the water, then treading water to stay afloat. Two different ways. — tim wood

Hegel deals with the world and consciousness at different levels. Thinking is part of being in the world. It includes and leads to all kinds of knowledge.
As far as I can tell, Hegel's intent to explicate the whole as a practical and human concern. The world and society are basic to individuals self-development or self-realisation.

The general theme of human self-realization in the practical sphere presupposes a conception of potentiality elaborated by Aristotle in Greek antiquity. For Aristotle, human being is rational as well as political. Subordinating ethics to politics, he sees life as realized in the political arena, what we now call society. Distantly following Aristotle, Hegel has constantly in mind a view of human beings as realizing their capacities in what they do. Society forms the real basis for human life, including knowledge of all kinds.

Hegel considers the practical consequences of two main views of human self-realization. Individual self-realization founders on the inevitable conflict between the individual and social reality, or between the individual and other people. The Kantian view, which focuses on strict application of universalizable moral principles in substituting rigid obedience for human self-realization, is self-stultifying for two reasons. First, universal principles binding on particular individuals cannot be formulated; and, second, proposed principles are unfailingly empty. Although human beings are intrinsically social, neither view of human subjectivity comprehends them in the sociohistorical context. Accordingly, Hegel turns to a richer conception, with obvious roots in Greek antiquity, of human action as intrinsically teleological. We must comprehend a person as acting teleologically to realize universal goals through action within the social context. — Tom Rockmore

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

Hegel casts loose from the world — tim wood

What a strange phrase. How can Hegel cast loose from the world when he is in it ?

What appears in consciousness is the immediacy of the chair. it "self-posits" itself there - don't ask how*. In its immediate self-positing it then becomes the ground, or first movement, in its own sublation into whatever it is to be in its completeness. — tim wood

* How can a chair self-posit ? There is no consciousness.

Yes, but we need not discard our immediacy of perception, right? We need to find the synthesis of both world and mind, Wesen(essence) and Form — WerMaat

I agree. We can't discard this. It is part of a 3 stage process. Leading to knowing ? Truth ?

1. Immediacy comes first. If it means intuitive and simple perception of the world. A vagueness.
Non conceptual. Universal.
2. Mediation is opposed to immediacy. If it means conceptualization. Cognition. Particular.
3. The process of reasoning ( ? involving 1. and 2. ) > Self development > Individuality

Or something like that ?

From this I get that negating isn't something I do, either consciously or unconsciously, rather it is a step intrinsic to understanding as the thing in revealing itself also conceals, and as (my) the understanding becomes aware of the concealment, the original insight/understanding is "destabilizes" (from above). — tim wood

I don't understand this. Would it be possible to give a practical example of how this operates ?

From Gardner's glossary:
NEGATIVE, NEGATION, NEGATIVITY, NEGATE

The negative is that which is different from, opposed to, other than. Negation is for Hegel determinate, as determinate as what is negated. Hegel's thought characteristically observes the dialectical sequence:
1. affirmation
2. negation
3. negation of negation = affirmation of something new.

Applied to consciousness, per Pinkard, negativity is the capacity to critically undermine its own form of rationality; (determinate) negation is the sceptical undermining of a form of rationality — Gardner

.

Note that the meaning of negation changes according to how or where it is applied.

As someone else advised: 'a glossary can be helpful but it can also be misleading. The general meaning of a term or even the way an author uses the term in general might not be the way he is using it in a specific instance.'

This is why I think it might be useful to compile one's own glossary along the way. Referencing context.
As mentioned earlier, this would be part of the active reading process - 'making the text 'properly one's own' by investigating its meaning and truth'.

To fill it out a bit. Based on Revelations a "new Jerusalem" is one of the signs of the Apocalypse according to Evangelicals. One of Trump's promises was to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel. — Fooloso4

Yes. Thanks for picking up my lazy point and expanding.

Thanks. This SEP article is very helpful. It describes various interpretations of Hegel's Dialectics.
[ It also provides a link to another resource. Hegel on Dialectic, Philosophy Bites podcast interview with Robert Stern (https://philosophybites.com/2010/04/robert-stern-on-hegel-on-dialectic.html). ]

The first moment I didn't copy, but the three together comprise what is called thesis, antithesis, synthesis (in some books, and as noted above somewhere, is terminology Hegel disavowed). — tim wood

Yes. Here, it spells out that Hegel rejects the technique of using a triadic form:

Instead of trying to squeeze the stages into a triadic form (cf. Solomon 1983: 22)—a technique Hegel himself rejects (PhG §50; cf. section 4)—we can see the process as driven by each determination on its own account: what it succeeds in grasping (which allows it to be stable, for a moment of understanding), what it fails to grasp or capture (in its dialectical moment), and how it leads (in its speculative moment) to a new concept or form that tries to correct for the one-sidedness of the moment of understanding. This sort of process might reveal a kind of argument that, as Hegel had promised, might produce a comprehensive and exhaustive exploration of every concept, form or determination in each subject matter, as well as raise dialectics above a haphazard analysis of various philosophical views to the level of a genuine science.

So how would this process be reconciled with an organic growth - thinking back to the analogy of bud, blossom, fruit (para 2 )? Distinct from the more formalised pattern of: positive >negative > aufheben.
Perhaps, a more important, overarching question should be kept in mind:
How does this process lead to what is important to Hegel - The Absolute Spirit or Idea ?

This “textbook” Being-Nothing-Becoming example is closely connected to the traditional idea that Hegel’s dialectics follows a thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, which, when applied to the logic, means that one concept is introduced as a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two (see, e.g., McTaggert 1964 [1910]: 3–4; Mure 1950: 302; Stace, 1955 [1924]: 90–3, 125–6; Kosek 1972: 243; E. Harris 1983: 93–7; Singer 1983: 77–79). Versions of this interpretation of Hegel’s dialectics continue to have currency (e.g., Forster 1993: 131; Stewart 2000: 39, 55; Fritzman 2014: 3–5). On this reading, Being is the positive moment or thesis, Nothing is the negative moment or antithesis, and Becoming is the moment ofaufheben or synthesis—the concept that cancels and preserves, or unifies and combines, Being and Nothing.

We must be careful, however, not to apply this textbook example too dogmatically to the rest of Hegel’s logic or to his dialectical method more generally (for a classic criticism of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis reading of Hegel’s dialectics, see Mueller 1958)...

...Ultimately, Hegel thought, as we saw (cf. section 1), the dialectical process leads to a completely unconditioned concept or form for each subject matter—the Absolute Idea (logic), Absolute Spirit (phenomenology), Absolute Idea of right and law (Philosophy of Right), and so on—which, taken together, form the “circle of circles” (EL §15) that constitutes the whole philosophical system or “Idea” (EL §15) that both overgrasps the world and makes it understandable (for us).

— Julie Maybee

[ I'm kinda back in the game after reading Peter Singer's Introduction to Hegel.
A short but clear overview - well explained.]

I can’ t fathom how any self-described Christian could approve of Trump if they know anything about him. — Wayfarer

Might have something to do with ushering in the End of Time.

This process continues as I read. Sometimes what I thought fit together must be torn apart and rebuilt if I cannot get what I am now reading to fit. Maybe what I had put together is not right and maybe what I am now trying to put together is not right and sometimes neither is right and the whole thing needs to be revised. But it may be that there are pieces that come later, and so, everything remains tentative. — Fooloso4

So, an easy 5 minute walk in the park :wink:

just great... now I don't just have Hegel to read and reread again, now I need to do the same AGAIN with your posts.. — WerMaat

Fooloso4 works hard at this; note his reading process above. His practice means an ever-increasing fluency in Hegelese. If anyone doesn't understand, he is accessible and amenable to answering questions like: 'Eh? You what ?!'

Fooloso4 is a teacher in the best sense, having patience and a desire to help others understand.
However, right now, I am a bit like the 3yr old girl in:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6244/i-simply-cant-function-without-my-blanket

Only with me, it's 'I Simply Can't Function Without My Glossary!' ( and Friends ).
And even then, I struggle.
I realise that I am not ready to climb Everest, being more of a rambler.

That is why I have downloaded a free pdf from scribd.com:
Peter Singer's 'HEGEL: A very short introduction'.

I'll continue to follow this fascinating discussion, from the foothills.
Happy climbing!

You know quite a bit of German, don't you? — WerMaat

Nicht wirklich. I knew it fairly well a long time ago.
Thanks for your very kind offer. But that would be too much for my fried brain right now.

(I take this from the way I tackle Latin translations... I go with my first vague understanding of a sentence, and then check the grammar in detail to see if it matches my thesis. A lot of times I have to discard my first idea, or at least revise it significantly, but it gives me a starting point) — WerMaat

Yes, that makes sense to me. Try an initial understanding before grabbing the dictionary.
That is kinda what I do. Have to say though, Latin, German and Italian are easier for me to understand than Hegelese.

I see what ideas, associations and hypotheses I can come up with myself, and then check if they hold up under scrutiny: Test them against the text itself, and with external sources, shave them with Occams razor and see what remains. — WerMaat

I like that. I would like it even better if I could do it in German. Consider me in awe !
My favourite German word: Ausgezeichnet :cool:

For example, my association with Plotin is probably nonsense if we have much closer, more contemporary candidates in Spinoza and Kant. — WerMaat

I am still not sure about any of this. You seem well ahead on the path of understanding.

For that reason we should probably rely on our more knowledgeable participants as well as secondary literature to point us in the right direction — WerMaat

Yes. I think that is the point of a group discussion. To benefit from others sharing their views and insights. And also to keep questioning...as you do so well.

Thanks.

Good point, I'll make sure to sort out the quote function in future! Sorry about that! — WerMaat

Kein Problem !
The quote function can be a bit of a pain :roll:

I don't know but it might be an idea to use the quote function, stating Hegel as source.
Otherwise, when your post is used as reference, it looks like Hegel's words are yours.
Confusing enough already.

Need to sort out the quotes. Tim should not be confused with Hegel.

One thing we can do is go through it again and again and again ourselves. — Fooloso4

Yes. We shouldn't expect to understand everything on a first read.
Read, reread and reread again.This requires time and focus.

One assumption that guides my reading of the philosophers is that when things do not make sense to me the problem is probably with me and not the text. — Fooloso4

Likewise.

One disadvantage of the way we are proceeding is that we have not read the whole of the preface or the whole of the book. — Fooloso4

Agreed. I was taught to scan or skim through the first time, not stopping at obstacles or confusing parts. Then return to take notes, look up specialised key terms and issues. But each to their own. I like to note and understand key words first...

This group discussion is a bit of a mix. Apparently taking place during a first read, hence the advice to carry on and not get bogged down. It seems we carry on - in various stages of ignorance - and return later, having gained an overall picture. Or in the perhaps vain hope of

... looking at Hegel to supply that clarity. — tim wood

Now I need to return to time out...

Nice resource. Maybe not a Dummy's Guide, but helpful. — tim wood

Yes. This glossary is more in-depth and explanatory than the previous Gardner one.
It links concepts and shows how Hegel uses them.

A glossary is an essential piece of kit when trying to understand or explicate the meaning.
Care needs to be taken that it is a reliable source. I think this one is.
However, I agree, even the definitions can be difficult to understand !
Some will already have acquired and are adept at using this specialised language.

It might be helpful to build own glossary along the way.
And edit it as understanding progresses.
Just a thought...

Glossary

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/glossary.htm

The way to win is to animate the Democratic base is with actual progressive policy proposals on issues people actually care about, such as Climate Change, Income Inequality, Healthcare, and Gun Control (and what's interesting is how different the 2018 voter issues are compared with the 2014 issues here....Climate Change and Healthcare have become top concerns now). — Maw

Good point. I think people want, need, to hear a positive message.
One that inspires hope for the present and future, instead of this miserable, regressive and divisive rhetoric.
America Smiles Better :grin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow%27s_miles_better

Trump didn't believe he was going to win and he surely doesn't believe at all that he could enlarge his base. — ssu

It seems some think that enlarging his base is exactly the point.

Conventional wisdom holds that Trump’s “premeditated racism” is designed to energise his base, often white people without college degrees in the industrial midwest. Douglas sees it differently.

“I don’t think he’s after his base. I think he’s after the moderate who’s not yet comfortable with this conversation

“He is positioning these four women as a socialist movement and he did it with Obama as well. So he is creating this not for his base. His base has decided. This is the centrist that he’s after.” — Andrea Douglas

Thanks.
I appreciate the time, patience, knowledge and experience you bring.
Will be taking some time out now but will follow with interest.

Mueller testifies in front of Congress Wednesday, broadcast live, although the depressing fact is that if the Mueller report hasn’t sunk Trump yet, then this probably won’t either. — Wayfarer

I feel for that guy.
It will depend on the performance by all involved.
Sometimes the film is better than the book...

From 15,000 miles away it looks awfully like it ought to be a Biden-Warren ticket. — Wayfarer

From what I have read, I would agree.

Funny, while Trump's minions are out there pretending he hasn't been openly racist, one was asked by Chris Cuomo: "Well, what if he said he was actually a racist? Would you support him then?" The poor guy was stumped. "That's a tough one" was the best he could he manage. — Baden

Given that things are going from bad to worse, I am actually waiting for that.
So far, he seems to accept that being racist is wrong.
But being a racist, there may well come a point where he thinks he can get away with telling it like it is:
'I am a racist. So what?'

The object of Trump's taunt was no congresswoman. — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately, she is now a target who might well need extra protection as a result.
Can you imagine the effect that must have on an individual - being hatefully picked on by a powerful president goading a crowd into a frenzy. It's not just a chant, it's an incitement to oppose and attack.

Sanders crowd or a Warren Crowd or a Trump crowd can all be turned on with the right--but quite different--words. Trump seems to have a feel for his people, which is important for him since his whole strategy has been to pander. — Bitter Crank

Yes. I keep thinking the Democrats should get themselves a good slogan. I liked the quote used by the congresswoman to hit back at Trump. Can't remember it but it's too wordy *
I enjoyed the sense of it - a rising into the air...
A bit like rising above it. And also an awareness arising...
It's strong but not punchy enough.

* Found it:

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I’ll rise. — Maya Angelou

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46446/still-i-rise

It is reassuring to know you find the translation to be good. I think having German as a first language will come in very useful when it comes to deciding meaning. For example:

Although he has not used the term, it is aufheben, both to cancel or negate and preserve. You referred to "aufheben and sublation" on page 4. Sublation is the English translation of aufheben. It is the preserve part that you seem to have overlooked. It is not a matter of leaving the past behind. If we are to understand the ontological status of 'idea' for Hegel we must see that he does not mean what we ordinarily mean when we talk about ideas. On the other hand, he does not mean some transcendent realm of unchanging beings either.* — Fooloso4

Pinkard discusses 'aufheben' and 'sublate' in his Translation Notes.
He leaves it up to the reader to judge whether it is being used simply as 1.negate 2.preserve or 3.both.
Another suggested meaning: to raise up.

He gives an example of 3. both.
A move in a philosophical conversation where an interlocutor might deny an opponent's point but there is still something worthy in it. So it is kept in a changed format in the ongoing discussion.

Thank you all for your helpful comments! I currently feel that I have nothing useful to add, but I'm following this discussion with great enjoyment. — WerMaat

Without your curiosity, questions, imagery and ideas, I might well have carried on in ignorance.
Now out of a sleepy stupor and fully engaged.

I agree this group discussion is stimulating. Look forward to hearing more...

The next few paragraphs further develop this. 16 begins:

In so doing, this formalism asserts that this monotony and abstract universality is the absolute ... — Fooloso4

Yes. I noticed that when Tim posted it earlier.

Pinkard #16
- 17 and 18 seem to go along with this, but combined are too long for one entry. No law against looking ahead at them. — tim wood

Indeed. It is helpful so to do.
I have also used the search function. 'Formalism' comes up 13 times.
Of interest to me relates to WerMaat's thoughts:

Like: they're just piling up stuff that was already there, and spray-paint it pink, and then expound how this perfectly shows the superiority of the theory of pinkness. — WerMaat

Hegel speaks of monotonous formalism being not that difficult to handle. It is like the limited palette of red and green. The painter using red for a historical piece, green for landscapes ( para 51, p79 ).

I am now wondering just how much of that is a true depiction of Schelling's view ( if he is the target ).
But that would be another book, another time - I guess...

Thank you for that.
It seems that Schelling is indeed a target of Hegel. And vice versa.
Bearing in mind the need to focus on the text, I only add this as a matter of interest.

Section 5. Positive and Negative Philosophy, and the Critique of Hegel

The differences between Hegel and Schelling derive from their respective approaches to understanding the absolute.  — Andrew Bowie

plato.stanford.edu/entries/schelling/#5

Thanks for that. All opinions welcome :smile:
It sounds good.
Kaufmann as an authority on the subject is more than likely to be right :cool:

I might add, learn your instrument and don't break it. — Fooloso4

But, but... that is part of being who you are, self-expression.

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

Think Pete Townshend of the Who.

Who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
(Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I said (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)

' ...this other view instead consists in only a 'monochrome formalism' (para 15 ).

I referred to this earlier, thinking it might have to do with the formalism of Kant.

I would be grateful for some clarity on this, thanks.

But the extent to which you allow this to happen is determined by you. — Fooloso4

Not always possible. Think circumcision.

One does not begin with the ability to play freely. So too, one does not begin with the ability to live freely. — Fooloso4

For sure, we start off with little.
As we grow, a few might still not have the ability or capacity to play music or live freely.
Depending on many factors- physical, geographical, political circumstances.

However, a child or someone with limited abilities, knowledge or talent can still sing, dance and jam without constraints of rule following. They are being themselves.

As you said, we work with what we got.

Dynamic means that it's changing/it doesn't stay the same. You're constantly changing, your personality is always in process of changing a bit, etc. — Terrapin Station

Everything changes to some extent. Action > Reaction.

That's about other persons' concepts, and specifically, it's about what they'd consider the "essential" features for them to christen something by a particular name. — Terrapin Station

I meant also to include the reaction of ' That's not me. That's not who I am '

This defensive exclamation can apply when someone tells it like it is. 'You're a racist'.
Sometimes we really don't know who we are. Or don't want to accept it.
Of course, some do. 'I'm a racist. So what ?'

Interesting thought about your given name and surname. Does it affect who we become. And does changing it mean that we aren't comfortable in that skin. Why do people stick with their forum name and others change. Stability, continuing reputation v Flexibility, renewal.

The Grateful Dead - quite the favourite with certain members. Our music, art, book collection reflects part of who we are at any given time. Some are core.

Thanks for sharing part of who you are.

The United States is great because of people like those women, who are changing what needs changed from the inside, because they love our country. Wanting change does not equate to hating one's country. — creativesoul

Indeed.

Another foreign leader has weighed in on Trump’s racist comments about “the Squad.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the president’s remarks run counter to “the strength of America.”

The German chancellor voiced her solidarity towards the Democratic politicians who were told by Trump this week to ‘go back...to the places from which they came’, saying:

‘I firmly distance myself from (the attacks) and feel solidarity towards the attacked women.’ She added: ‘the strength of America lies in the idea that people of different origins contribute to what makes the country great.’” — Kate Connolly reports